Skip to main content

About this Show

U.S. House of Representatives

News News/Business. Live coverage of House proceedings.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 91 (627 MHz)






Us 45, America 17, Mr. Mondale 15, Ferraro 15, Soviet Union 11, Bush 10, United States 10, California 10, Washington 10, Obama 9, Lebanon 9, El Salvador 7, Texas 7, Iran 6, Barack Obama 5, Chris Gibson 5, Gloria Steinem 5, Eleanor Smeal 5, Mrs. Ferraro 5, Kentucky 5,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    U.S. House of Representatives    News  News/Business. Live  
   coverage of House proceedings.  

    October 11, 2012
    1:00 - 5:00pm EDT  

>> i am optimistic. >> we will breakaway here and take you to the national press club this afternoon, bringing you the 40th anniversary of "ms ." i want to welcome the many who have joined us here today as well as our sisters in the feminist media. it is my pleasure to introduce those of us joining us today. laura, huff inc.ton post.
next to her, kathy bunk. and a strategic advice sor to "ms." magazine. eleanor clift to my left. she is the political editor to news week and daily beast and a comment tor. carroll general kins -- general kins next to her. founding president of the women's media center. lisa matthews and longer
introductions a little bit later but bonnie thornton dill, eleanor smeal the founder and publisher of "ms." and the publisher of "ms." gloria steinem, co-founder of "ms." magazine. >> i i'd also like to salute some people who make "ms." possible, the editors and associate editors.
[applause] >> for more about "ms." magazine i'm urging our television audience today and all of you to be sure you go to four years ago when the first issue hit the stands, the news anchor gives it six months before they run out of things to say. for 40 years ms. has been making history, pushing forward and inspiring a movement that has changed our world. "ms." has played an important role against violence and rape, for equal pay and educational
opportunities. on behalf of civil rights and women's rights. we've shown a bright light on women's rights from the powerful economic interest that profit at women's expense to the relishes fundamentalist. in the fall issue of "ms.," we celebrate these 40 years of impactful reporting. from the very first issue, with the abortion petition signed by 53 prominent women who had abortions when they were illegal to repeal our abortion laws. nearly 15 years before anita hill's fame mouse testimony. to our ground beaking reporting that defined genital mutilation as an international crime
against women. to our 1996 look inside the taliban's regime before most of the media had even noticed right up to our 2011 story declaring rape is rape in which we revealed the f.b.i.'s 80-year-old definition of rape under counted rapes in this country by hundreds of thousands every year. that was part of a larger feminist campaign and kicked off a fire storm resulting in 140,000 e-mails and letters to the f.b.i. and attorney general demanding the definition be changed. it was, we succeeded. mrs. mrs. mrs. has always been ahead of the main stream news when it comes to coverage of women and girls.
"ms." first sounded the alarm about the war on women eight years ago. behind me you'll recognize the cover of "ms.," wonder woman fighting for peace and justice. for our 40th anniversary we wanted to feature this iconic super hero with women marching to stop the attacks of women's rights, vote as if your life depends on it. wonder woman has been an enduring symbol of women's power and we could find no better way to urge women to use their power, the power of their vote to stand up for themselves and their rights in the coming elections. you're going to hear more about some of that today and you're going to have a chance to ask our speakers questions. if you fill out the cards on
your table, our staff will be around shortly to collect them. now i'd like to introduce the feminist majority foundation's global program director. >> thank you so much for that. i am so honored to be here and this close to gloria steinem because i will never get over when i was a little girl my english teacher gave me my first caller: of "ms." magazine. for me "ms." has always been synonymous. that's a great honor. as we celebrate 40 years of reporting by "ms." magazine, we are also celebrating the youngest feminist activist among us today. aoctober 11th is the international day of the girl
child. to recognize girls and the unique rights and challenges that they face around the world. for its first observance it focuses on ending child marriage. around the world one in three girls are married before they reach the age of 18. it is a violation of a girl's fundamental human rights and impacts all aspects of her life. child marriage robs a girl of her childhood, limits her opportunities, increases her risk to be a victim of violence and abuse. in fact complications from too early pregnancy are the leading cause of death for girls under the age of 19 years. child marriage virtually end a girl's education. when girls are able to stay in school and avoid being married early, they can build a foundation for their lives, their families and participate in the progress of their
countries. on this first international day of the girl child, we must double our commitment ensuring that all countries enact and enforce laws to increase the minimum age of marriage for girls to 18. we must demand that all countries offer access to education for all children and ensure that gender gaps in schools are eliminated. we must demand that the root causes underlying child marriage, gender discrimination, poverty and cultural justifications be ended here and arled the -- around the world. and we must not forget the girls around the world that demand these things. there is a girl who is 14
-year-old who was shot in the head by the taliban. she was attacked because she stood up to the taliban when they took over two years ago and they ordered all the girl schools to be closed down. she revealed what this experience was like through her writing about life under the brutele control of the taliban from 2007 to 2009. she wrote her dream was a country where education would prevail. she is in critical condition in pakistan. we cannot let her be forgotten. nor can we forget the girls in afghanistan who face threats by the taliban as they reclaim their rightes to go to work and school. a little more than a year ago the feminist foundation combined forces with girls
international. through girls learn high school and middle school students both girls and boys learn about human rights and mobile lies their schools and communities in the movement to ensure every girl has quality education. and the status of women meetings every sping enshures that girls are seen and heard during this important international conferences. today all over the u.s. and with their international partner schools, they are organizing school assemblies, even a flash mob in grand central station in new york city to get the word out about the challenge that is girls face around the world. i'm very excited to introduce the advice source who have joined us this afternoon. thomas jefferson high school for science and technology,
georgetown day school, albert ion tine high school, halls without walls. thank you so much. we applaud you and your work. thank you so much on behalf of women and girls around the world. >> i would like to give a special shoutout to hillary clinton and the united population fund, yesterday in very high level meetings pledged nearly $50 million for a campaign to end child marriage. [applause] >> i'd like now to ask eleanor smeal to join me. i've had the great privilege of working with her for 25 years. she is one of the contemporary
women's movements and one of its most recognized leaders. in 1980 she was the first to define and prove the gender gap that it existed and she has been a key force ever since to secure women's rights. please welcome eleanor smeal. [applause]. >> thank you this is quite a year for us. this is also the 25th anniversary for the feminist majority. and kathy never gets introduced
in her own right. i want to introduce katherine spillar who has kept us going in so many ways and now is executive editor of "ms.." and that's not in name only, that's in reality. she gets the get. she gets the story. she makes sure that we're always not only relevant but that we're ahead of times and that everything from rape is rape campaign to cracking in and showing what the army of god is. we have been on the front lines and i pay tribute to all of your hard work and your ability to make it crack and be groundbreaking, making history all the time. thank you for everything you do. [applause] >> it's really, a lot of people say to us a magazine.
that was the 20th century. but "ms." is a magazine scene ta started in the 20th century and is moving forward in the 21st century. and i believe it's the greatest of times for us, let's be real. we are now able to reach through social media about two million people a-year, with their views, they're seeing it and reading it that we never could reach before. we talked about the 140,000 letters we produced. that was social media. we have "ms." in the classroom we will tell you about. and that's also a digital edition. we have a new app that will put us on all of the digital newsstands in november. but we are now viewed worldwide. i just love some of the new software where you can get there and see the light bulbs
all over the place. we are everywhere and it sure beats have to distribute paper caller:s everywhere. we are a daily. we put out a feminist news wire daily. we also have our "ms." blog which is cutting edge and has tense of thousands. i get lost on these numbers but i believe them because we hear from the e-mail constantly from women all over. ideas spread and the strength of this movement is the strength of its ideas that cannot be denied. so we're very very happy with our growth. it's just begun and i feel that what i love is that we can be our own publisher and get out
the word in ten minutes any time we want. it's so beautiful. we're not going to say much about the election because we're a 501-c 3 so we're a nonprofit and we can't take a position on candidates, unbelievable. but we can take a position on ballot issues and on issues of all kinds. so in this issue of our 40th anniversary we hit the ballot measures in 34 states, abortion rights, same sex marriage, the environment, legalizing marijuana, everything is on these ballots so everybody has to not just do the candidates, they have to vote on the ballot issues. and by the way, on that little gender gap, do not worry, there
is a genre gap. it's been there every time since 1980. and it is the voice -- we got the woman's vote but for so long they said they vote but all they do is vote according to men's pocketbook. no, that was wrong when i was taught it in my political science classes and it's very wrong now. women are voting their own interest on medicaid, family planning, reproductive rights. i could go on. and that measure -- when you hear that it's disappeared, don't believe that. it has not disappeared. it is the difference between men and women's votes and it's measureable. and it's based not on good looks but on positions on issues. and it will be there, it is there. and always when you hear all these polls, look at the
combination of how many democrats they're putting in, how many young people, how many people are color. those numbers always change and sometimes you're comparing apples with oranges on these polls. everybody is working so hard on this. "ms." is true in its own way. and believe me, women will be heard. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i'd like to now introduce bonnie thornton dill. i introduced her initially as the chair of our committee of scholars. but she's much more than that. for those of you who know her, she is also the dean of the college of arts and humanities at the college in maryland. boney is also the president of
the national women's association and has been an incredible force for us when we reconstituted our scholars committee from all across the country recruited to write for "ms." and to be there with information and ideas. and the interesting thing that we learned after we recruited boney for this position is she had been on the original board of scollass for "ms." magazine which was established in 1979. so she has been with "ms." almost its entire history. welcome today. >> [applause] >> thank you. it's wonderful to look out and see this great gathering of people today. i'm so happy to say a word or
two to you about women's studies and its relationship to the magazine. which is of course more than a magazine, it's a movement and it's that movement that gave birth to both the magazine and to the academic field of women's studies. so "ms." is informed by and has always been informed by in promoting the scholarship of women's studies. it's been a platform to reach a popular audience with research and ideas that helped "ms." advance public knowledge. women studies knowledge have made the classroom a resource to keep their students in the movement. they've told you about my personal engagement with "ms." which they have now documented because i said it was sometime back in the -- and it is
amazing really that i've been with "ms." as long as i v. but it is also wonderful and amazing that "ms." has been here for us as long as it has. [applause] so when the feminist majority started publishing "ms." and reaccomplished their committee of scholars. the purpose of that committee was to continue to work of strengthening connections between the community of activists and women worldwide providing an intersectional analysis of the ways race, class, sex alty, religion combine with gender to affect women's lives. today this committee is actively involved in the magazine in a number of ways. we suggestion topics for the magazine. we review books, we recruit
experts to write for "ms.." and through a foundation grant "ms." sponsored writing work shops to train particularly women study scholars in various media platforms. and i remember one of those meetings where there were the older generation of us and the younger generation of us. and the older generation was i don't know why i need to be on northbound and the younger people were saying this is the way you communicate with your friends. and eleanor smeal said you all have got to get with it. so she brought us kicking and screaming into the 21st century and the magazine has stayed in the forefront of that. in addition, not only are we as scholars there working with the
magazine but we're bringing the magazine into the class rooms for our students. "ms." has this wonderful classroom program. and "ms." has always been involved in the classroom. they used to give away free magazines, they used to give them out in the prisons even and still do. so in the classroom which is the one that i know about shes it's now a digital text. it's used in class rooms in political science, and communications in 48 states and 415 colleges and universities. it covers a range of courses, women studies courses of course but also courses in composition and fund meantles of writing, gender and law, public
speakings, i could go on and on. "ms." is there. and so this movement who is roots in women's studies whoose roots led to both women's studies and the magazine. the point is it's live, it's well, it's nour risching the next generation. and i'm very proud to be a part of it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for our leadership on our committee of scholars. now i'd like to introduce gloria steinem, co-founder of "ms." magazine. she does remain a consulting editor to the magazine today. it's fitting we're celebrating here today because she was one of the first women ever allowed to speak at the national press club nearly 40 years ago when the girl reporters were still
relegated to the balcony. in fact, we have among us today someone who helped integrate the national press club together with four women and three other men sat in the bar until they were thrown out initiating a lawsuit that ultimately allowed women to become members of the national press club. joining us today is tom. [applause] thank you tom. so just as the magazine was launched, gloria has never run out of newsworthy things to say. she travels the country and the world speaking truth to power. she continues to be a force in
feminist media and to provide ideas to us at "ms.." we are greatful for our courage in starting "ms." magazine and for your dedication in keeping "ms." triving and impactful. please welcome gloria steinem. [applause] >> it's true, this does have a certain symmetry to be here. i think i was the very first woman toffer speak. i was a mass of nerves as you can imagen. i don't know what happens to you with nerveness but i lose all my sa live v.a. and each
tooth acquires a little sweater. and they gave me a tie because that was what was given to all the speakers. then soon it repeated itself because the nixon's enmislist people. all of us were very proud to be on. there but one was so proud that he sent a memo to everyone else and it was a tie clip. so i just want to give you an idea that even among both friends and enmies you were kind of by yourself. and this is so much the opposite. i look around this room and i see people of such hard and --
heart and courage and bringing fresh energy and, you know, if the world were like this room, there would be no problems. [applause] and i was trying to figure out what on earth i could say to you because you're all so accomplished and smart and you know it all. so i was thinking of what it is that we face collectively. and i would say, of course, first, it is a profound deep backlash which is in a sense a tribute to the front lash. if we hadn't changed the majority harets and mind in this and other countries, he would not be having this kind of backlash. if you look at the public opinion polls, you feel good
because we do have the majority on every single issue that we've raised. but nor is it written that the majority will win and there is e normous powerton other side and financial interest on the other side. just as one example of what is at stake in terms of economics, if we just had equal pay in this country, just the single thing of equal pay which is what most everybody grease with, we would have the single most important economic stimulus this country could possibly ever have. it would be about $200 billion more a year injected into the economy. about $150 a week more for white womenton average, for
women of color somewhere between $250 and $350. and it would be injected into the economy. we are going to spend it and it is going to create jobs. so wherever we look, i think we see what's at stake because, of course, the folks that would have to pay that equal pay don't want to pay it. women are in the world at large are the single greatest source of cheap labor and unpaid labor and that is a source of rstens, right. and we are also the means of reproduction. hello, if we were not the means of reproduction, we would be fine because it is necessary to nationalism, there are only two pill lars of nationalism,
controlling territory and population. it is necessary for our means and cheap labor, it is necessary to control reproduction in order to perp wait racial divisions and class divisions and eth nick divisions. you have to isolate the support women so they maintain the purity of some group and exploit the women who are supposedly not the support women in order to create cheap labor. i'm sure that we were all having heart attack with the last election because we were constantly being asked which is more important, sex or race. that's impossible because they're completely intertwined.
so we began to see how crucial it is when we say what seems to be a simple thing for us, that is reproductive freedom. we are seizing control of the means of reproduction. it sound rad dal, doesn't it? and all of the great social justice missouris are linked. sometimes on campuses someone will say to me why is it that the ultra right wing is against both he has yans and birth control? but the high arki controlling reproduction controlling point of view is that sex alty is only okay when it is directed toward having children and
takes place inside a pate ar cal marriage. in other words when it is controlled in exactly that way. so all of us at every noint history, all over the world the women's movements and the gay movements whether it was in germany between world war i and world war ii, wherever it was the movement versus come together because we are trying to free human sex alty. how do we explain this simply? when i explain this i feel i'm aligning other animals. because i think that human beings are the only animals who can experience the same sexual pleasure whether they can conceive or not. other animals seem so have periods of heat which sexual desire is concentrated. so for human beings our sex alty is a mark of our humanity
like our ability to reason. other animals think and feel but we think about thinking and think about feeling. it is a mark of our humanity that sex alty is a way that we reach out to each other and bond and express love and caring. and all of us in all the great social justice movements are trying to free this as a form of expression. so i hope that we understand now deeply that our movements are linked, not ranked, and that we in this room are linked and not ranked. that the whole paradigm of what we are looking for is the circle, not the pyramid. that this has existed for much of human existed. it was indeed and still is the
paradigm of original cull chures around the world which account for 95% of human history. so we are trying to move forward in a new way that is also a very old way. and that has a profound degree of rstens. so i think the backlash is problem number one. but problem number two is that the backlash take it is form of telling us we've already succeeded. have you noticed that? it takes different forms, young women are not feminist. look at the public opinion polls. young women are more supportive of feminist issues than older women are. that is the mith. you've already succeeded, that was yesterday.
so part of what i think we need to rededicate ourselves to today is an understanding that all great social justice movements must last something like assentry if they are to be really deeply absorbed into the culture and understood to be normal and natural. we all absorb what we grew up with and it feels like home and it familiar rises sometimes violence in the home. so it's going to take generations to make the norm one of linking, not ranking. but we are, i would say, in this wave and there may be waves after this, in this century, we're at least 40 years into. we're half way into it.
i don't know how to break this to you but we're only half way. so i hope that -- i think of it, you know those things in the 8th grade the come pass thing and the point, so if we just take the distance we've traveled in 40 years, it's important to look at that and nond that 40 years ago we did not have a term like battered women or domestic violence, it was just called life. we didn't recognize it, we didn't have laws. it was a single form of violence in which the success was to get the criminal back together with the victim. so we've come in this month which is national domestic
violence month a very long distance and we have great heroes. [applause] we've come a very long distance, a huge distance now but we need to project forward and see where we need to go, the same distance into the future. and part of it is seeing that domestic violence should maybe be called original violence because it is the root of all other violence. it normalizes -- the degree of violence in the family exactly predicts the degree of violence in the culture at large and foreign policy and we don't see that yet. we are still seeing women's issues as siloed. you know, we're not quite seeing them as integrated.
reporters say to me aren't you interested in anything other than the women's movement and for 40 years i've been saying tell me one thing. nobody has been able to tell me anything. now for a long time we've known that in trible societies the single shared characteristic of violent or peaceful societies is whether or not the jenders are polarized. is masculinity used as a way of forcing men, convincing men to endanger themselves and to act against their own self-interest to be controlling and violent. and is femininity used to convince women to do labor with no reward, to have children against the interest of their own bodies and health. so we've known that about
trible societies. but now we have begun to understand this is true of every nation and culture in this world. and i commend to you and under the influence of bonn any all these years i get excited about all the research. sex and world piece by valuery hudson and other scholars from different fields. and they have demonstrated in 150 countries they say we have found a conventional testing. tchaunt sound respectable. that the best predictor of a state's peacefulness is not its level of wealth or its level of democracy or its natural resources or its religion, none
of those things, even democracy, right. the very best predictor of a state's peacefulness is its level of violence against women, violence against females because that includes honor killing, it includes all the forms of violence. we need a foreign policy that reflects this, right. that's where we need to be in the future as we measure the distance forward. we need to understand that the family and the household is the mike cosm of what is to come. so those are just examples i think we all have our own examples and i hope during the discussion time that i'm looking forward to because in this room it will be an organizing meeting, we can
understand where it is we wish to go. and also reveal more clearly where it is we are now. for instance, domestic violence or original violence has i did minu shd somewhat but it is true right now if you added up all the women murdered by their husbands or boyfriends since 9/11 and took all the people killed in 9/11, all the americans killed in iraq and afghanistan there are more women murdered by their husbands and boyfriends than cleckively killed in all those situations. it's also still true that the average prison sentence for a partner, a male partner who kills his female partner is he
has than a woman who kills in self-defense in the home. it's still true that the home in our country is the single most dangerous place for a woman, it's not the street. so we need to look at what really exists, highlight what really exists, see things in a different frame, see equal pay as an economic stimulus. has anybody written about it that way? i have not seen it. and understand the profound deep implications of what we are about. sometimes there is an immediate thing we need to do. obviously we need to reauthorize the violence against women act before the end of this year, right. [applause].
one of the hold was so outrageous because it was about indian country where there is more violence against women and that's what they didn't want. this room knows more about the process of the senate and the house. but sometimes there is an immediate goal of that sort. and then there is the very long-term goal of understanding not to be -- i don't want to frighten anybody here, but it is the key to world peace. that is a huge distance and it's absolutely true. we need to understand that the question can women have it all is not the right question. most women are asking any way am i going to lose it all. it's a very rare fide question than can i have it all. but also the question is why
are we asking the individual when we live in the only industrial democracy in the world that doesn't have child care, it is the most unfriendly work policies in terms of both parents being equal parents which and the ultimate answer is men raising children as much as women do. and women being as active outside the home as much as men are. it's going to be very difficult to get past the 17% mark in congress as the number of women in decision making positions as long as we deeply associate female authority with childhood because that's when we see most of us see female authority then. it seems not appropriate to the outside world in some deep sense, we haven't seen it
enough. and i think some men as you can see by the press corpse response to hillary clinton feel regressed to childhood when they see a powerful woman. they were eight years old the last time. so wherever -- whatever the area, i hope that we will after today never again fall for the idea that it's over or that it's not necessary anymore or that it doesn't have huge majority support. it does, absolutely. we have won the hearts and minds but we are not won the power, the employers, the religions, that is the source of the backlash, that's where it is. but one day we will get there. and i just wanted to read you the end of this book on sex and
world peace because it has a lovely image speaking of the female half of the world as wounded. a bird with one broken wing will never sore. we know that. our cease sis has experienced it and paid for that sure knowledge with rivers of blood and mountains of needless surfing. the nations of the world must try a different path, a path we have every reason to believe will lead to security and peace for the entire international system. the path of quality between men and women, we cannot fail. it's time for the bird to finally take wing. thank you. [applause].
>> thank you. i'm going to moderate this question and answer session and actually our first question comes from laura. . do you want to ask a question? >> please pass and maybe come back to me. >> the first question on the question and answer cards is to tell tuss top two priorities for the new congress to advance
women and girls assuming we get the violence against women act passed this fall, although that's not a safe assumption probably. but the two top priorities you think we should pursue? >> we're going to pass the violence against women act. so the first one would be that we dramatically increase the funding for reproductive health and that we tie it not only nationally but internationally. and that we do not figure out how much money is from incrementally increasing a little bit but we look at the need and start with the need so that it is a dramatic increase. now mind you, it would probably not be as much as a few missiles but it would be a
dramatic increase. right now 500,000 women a year are dying a-year because they do not have control of their reproductive lives. so that would be one. and number two is on the economic scale, and i don't want to make this one economic thing. for heaven's sakes we have to have paid sick days for women. almost half of all women have not one paid sick day. we have to not only make sure the ledetter act stays on the book but we have to have the fair pay act. so there is a whole range of issues economically we cannot accept any longer the inquality of income that is generated by tolerating the underpayment of
women. and we can fix it. and we have all these acts ready to go. we just have to pass them. [applause]. >> and i would continue what she is saying in an international sense and understand that we are not using women's movements as peace makers. if you think about ireland for instance it was the property stant and irish peace women won the nobel prize for their efforts and ireland seemed insoluble in the same way the middle east does now. if you think about liberia it was the women coming together and it was without government sank and without our own encouragement. so it needs to be a true component in our foreign policy. we need to see this as fundamental and act is if it's
fundamental. and of course in afghanistan, you know, i mean thanks to the feminist majority that was concern about the women in afghanistan but i can tell you the administration was saying it's their culture. i think maybe what happens to women is culture, what happens to men is politics. you can't change that. and we now have the very deep and important problem of how we leave and what happens. [applause]. >> i invite any of our members of the press and the feminist media who have joined us today to also jump in. it's a question now about girls and young women who want to
make a difference for women's rights and in feminism, do you have advice for them? >> my advice is don't listen to me. really, listen to yourself. that's the whole idea. we're here to support you and learn from you. no relationship is unequal including between young and old. we know different things, we learn from each other. so i would say if we approach it in that way and we listen to the young as much as they listen to us and they speak as much as we speak, we'll be okay. >> this is a question about women in the labor movement and we have many sisters here today
from the labor movement. how can we get their stories into the main stream press, the struggles they face and the battles they wage? >> i will just say that we do try in "ms." magazine to always be reporting -- this movement is huge, it is so mass tive you can't even begin to count the numbers of organizations that are working in some sector, domestic or global for women's rights and certainly the women in the labor movement have made sure that their issues are on the table, although they need support and help. and we've always tried in "ms." magazine to be sure that their struggles are shown, women in the healthcare industries, teachers right now facing a huge loss of jobs because of government cut backs at the state level and at the local
level. their stories must be told and that's a major commit thament "ms." magazine has always made is through a feminist lens look at the problems of today and make sure that stories are told on behalf of those of us who are frequently left out in the main stream media. but that's been a commitment. there was a related question about medicare and medicaid. is this a woman's issue? >> we've talked a lot about young women here. obviously before the electorate and in discussions right now it's what's happening to medicare and medicaid. it is a woman's issue. and the woman's movement was largely behind the affordable care act. it is a cause no discrimination on the basis of sex. but on medicare it helps.
there is no cuts to benefits, please no cuts to benefits under medicare under the affordable care act. in fact, there is increase in benefits for the elderly, not only for the donut hole but more importantly there is an increase for presentive care. the whole package, physical exams for the young birth control without co-pays or deductibles, for the older people make sure they can get shingles vaccinations. so there is a tremendous presentive care package and a tremendous advantage. so that's why the woman's movement has been largely very committed to the affordable care act. we will leave no sister behind refer to the young and the old.
>> what is the difference between 20th century and 21st century feminism and when you made your pledge in the last century, how would you make it today? >> we have a lot of young people here, we want to keep them going. >> first of all, it's not about the century or the time. i notice young women who come out of families who were anti-feminist families are like second wave feminists. young women who come out of families that were supportive and cared them forward have a -- so i think we may overplay. we need to look at the specific situation of the people and not so much about the century. but i do think there is much
more power to make a choice now. so in the past when we -- i mean certain things were a source of fear and now they are a source of power. i would include marriage, sex wallty, a whole bunch of things. i think sometimes older feminist look at younger feminist and see they're dressed in a body revealing way and make a judgment because we felt endangered by that when in fact they feel empowered by that. so i think we need to look at the individual situation and say to ourselves is this the as free a choice as can be made in this situation and if it isn't we can speak from our own experience and say it applies and we can say great, right on,
fantastic. >> i think we have time for one more question. a last question and we can talk about this is how can we get more women elected to public office and when do we think we'll see the first woman president and will it make a difference?>> we should stand tr since this is the last one. i suspect we don't know. it's going to be soon. we need to remind them it's not about biology, it's about
consciousness. it's about making life more fair for both women and men. [applause] we have had some recent experience with people who thought we were so out of it that we would vote by biology. it turned out not to be true. i believe this election -- >> i believe this election we will see an increase in both houses of women elected. in fact, with a little bit of luck, one of the two parties and -- one of the two parties will have more women and minorities in their delegation. you can guess which of the two. i think ms. magazine named it in
that '70s. it's the biggest race gap in history of the country. it all depends on who votes and who doesn't. while i am certainly not arguing that female human beings are more moral than men, but there are voter patterns that are more true in both parties. women elected officials are more likely to the for health education, welfare, military spending, so on. we see that gender gap. to see ae likely positive role for the services that the government. there are experiential differences. we need both men and women. otherwise we may not have all the alternatives. what we need to think about is what political candidacies might be born in this room? who would like to run for a
county office, school board office, congress, it's us, not someone else. [applause] >> i want to thank every one of the for coming today and helping us celebrate. i want to particularly thank gloria steinem and eleanor smeal. [applause] bonnie gordon bell, eleanor clift, carol dinkins and lisa matthews for joining us today on the dice. thank you and join the ms. community and on to the next half of this century. [applause]
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> followed with it again later on the c-span network and you will also find it in the video library at later tonight, watch and join in as the vice-president -- vice- presidential debate begins tonight with the debate preview at 7:00. the debate begins at 9:00 and is 90 minutes and is moderated by martha raddatz. we will open up our phone lines for your reaction to -- or tweets and e-mail, getting underway here at 7:00 right here on c-span, c-span radio, and c- here is a look at the debate
setting, the stage for tonight's debate. the college was founded in 1819 and has posted debate in the past as well. the look here from outside -- there ago outside the debate all. this is actually the festival lawn area where they are having the debate prep this evening. there is a large viewing area and stage where folks will be able to see the screens which will have the c-span feed and they will be able to watch the debate, those who are not able to get inside. you will see the aarp here and the number of other organizations bringing on information on their can't its support and handing them out to folks. live coverage here on c-span.
[interesting conversations] -- [in distinct conversations]
♪ >> a look way down at the other end of the festival lawn, the stage area and the video screens -- a big crowd is expected at debate fest at center college. on our facebook page, we are asking you what you would ask the vice-presidential candidates if you could. we have some interesting questions, including -- were your necktie -- wear neckties selected by highly paid consultants. another says mr. romney would cut unnecessary subsidies --
does that include subsidies for the oil companies? another asks about hydraulic fracturing and the keystone pipeline. if you would like to weigh in, but it to our facebook page. we're covering the debate live tonight and later, you can watch the entire thing on our debate hub. we will break it down by topic area and individual clips. we have made it easy for you to share your own clips at c- as we get ready for tonight's debate, we will take you back to 1984 when democratic presidential candidate walter mondale is directly chose geraldine ferraro as the first woman candidate on a majority party ticket. she faced off against incumbent vice president george h. w. bush. the 90 minute debate took place in philadelphia and was moderated by nbc news anchor sandy than ochre. [applause]
>> good evening. good evening from the civic center in philadelphia, pennsylvania. i'm dorothy ridings, president of the league of women voters, the sponsor of tonight's vice- presidential debate between republican george bush and democrat geraldine ferraro. our panelists for tonight's debate are john magic, national correspondent for "u.s. news and world report." jack white, correspondent for "time" magazine. norma quarles, correspondent for nbc news. and robert boyd, washington bureau chief for "knight ridder newspapers." the senior political correspondent for abc news is our moderator tonight. >> a few words about the order
of our format tonight. geraldine ferraro won the toss up. a reporter will ask a candidate a question, a follow-up question, and in the same to the other candidate and each candidate will get to rebut the other. the debate will be divided into two parts. will be a section, the first one on domestic affairs, the second on foreign affairs. the manner of address was decided by the candidates, therefore it will be vice president bush, congresswoman ferraro. we begin our questioning. >> john adams, our nation's first president, once said today i am nothing, tomorrow i may be everything. with that in mind, i would like to ask the following question. is president bush, four years ago, you ran against mr. reagan for the republican nomination. you disagree with him on such
issues as the equal rights amendment, abortion, and even labeled his economic policies as voodoo. now you apparently agree with him on every issue. if you should be called upon to assume the presidency, would you follow mr. reagan's policies down a line or would you refer to your own ideas? >> i don't think there is a great deal of difference between my ideas and president reagan's. one reason i think we are unaffected team is i believe in his leadership. he has really turned this country around. we agree on the economic programs. when we came into office, why inflation was 21.5%, interest rates wiping out every single american, at 21.5%, if you can believe it, productivity is down, savings was down, there was despair and in fact the leadership of the country said there was a melees out there. this president has turned it around and i have been with him
every step of the way. of course i would continue those kinds of programs because it has brought america back. america is better off, people are going back to work, and why mr. mondale can't understand there is a new enthusiasm in this country, that america is back in there is new, strong leadership, i don't know. he has one answer to the problem -- raise everybody's taxes. he took it -- he looked right into the land and says i'm going to raise your taxes. he has had a lot of experience in that and he is going to go ahead and do it. but remember the statement from london johnson when he was looking around at why his party people weren't supporting him. -- lyndon johnson. he said they paid their tails white and ran with the envelopes. there are a lot of democratic tales running with the antelopes. not one single democrat has introduced the mondale tax bill into the congress. of course i support the
president's economic program and i support him and everything else. i'm not sure because of my concept of the vice presidency that if i didn't i would go doing what mr. mondale has done with jimmy carter -- jump away from it. i could not do that to ronald reagan now, next year, or any other time. i have too much trust in him, too much friendship for him, and i would feel very uncomfortable doing it. >> some republicans have criticized mr. mondale for saying he disagreed privately with jimmy carter's decision to impose a grain embargo. have you ever disagreed with any decision of the reagan administration and its inner circles? following that up, where in your judgment as loyalty and and principal begin? >> i owe my president my judgment, and i owe him loyalty. you cannot have the president of the united states out there looking over his shoulder wondering whether his vice- president is going to be supporting him. mrs. ferraro has quite a few
differences with vice president mondale, and i understood it when she changed her position on tax credits and buses and to extend the grain embargo. he now says he was against it. if they win, and i hope they don't, but if they win, she will have to accommodate some views, but she will give him the same kind of loyalty i am giving president reagan. we're not far apart on anything. second, i can walk into the oval office any time and he might agree or might not. but he also knows i will be talking about it to the press or knifing him in the back by leaking to make me look good and complicate the problems of the president of united states. >> congresswoman ferraro, your opponent has served in the house of representatives, been ambassador to the united nations, ambassador to china, director of the central intelligence agency and has been vice president for four years. how is your three terms in the house of representatives stacked
up against experience like that? >> let me just say that i will what board at the age of 43. "a prosecutor for almost five years. on your only what is paper resonate that makes you qualified to run for or hold office. how you approach problems and what your values are. if one has taken a look at my career. they will see i approach problems analytically and i eat various fax with problems -- various fact. i am intrigued when i hear about the economic programs and how things are going so beautifully he called the program of voodoo economics and it was and it is.
we're facing absolutely massive deficits. this administration has chosen to ignore it. the president has failed, put forth a plan to deal with those deficits and if everyone believes everything is coming up roses, perhaps the vice- president should join me as i travel around the country and speak to people. people in pennsylvania are not terribly thrilled with what happening in the economy. people in youngstown, ohio have stores that are boarded up because the economy is not doing well. it's not only the old industries that are not -- in san jose, calif., they are complaining because they cannot export their high-quality goods to japan and other countries. people in the northwest and in the state of oregon are complaining about what's happening to the timber industry and agriculture industry. things are not as great as the administration is wanting us to
believe in their television commercials. my feeling quite frankly is i have enough experience to see the problems, address them, and make the tough decision that level of people with reference to this problem. >> despite the historic aspects of your candidacy, the account for the fact a majority of women according to the polls favor the reagan-bush take it over the mondale-ferraro ticket? >> let me say i'm not a believer in polls and let me say further that what we are talking about our problems facing the entire nation. they are not just problems facing the nation. the issues facing the campaign of the war-peace issues, the problems of deficits, trade deficits, we are facing a $120 billion trade deficit in this country. we are facing problems with the environment. and in what we will be doing
over the next several weeks, and i'm absolutely delighted the league is sponsoring these debates and we are able to speak to the american public and address the issues in a way such as this and i think you're going to see a change. >> vice-president bush, you have one minute for a bottle. >> i was glad to get that vote of confidence from mrs. ferraro on my economic judgment. let me make a statement on the economy. the other day, she was in eggplant and she said to the workers why are you all voting for the reagan-bush ticket? and there was a long, deathly silence. and she says we delivered. that's the problem. not blaming her, except for the liberal voting record in the house, they delivered. they delivered 21.5% interest rates. they delivered what they called malaise. they delivered interest rates that are off the charts. they delivered to come pace,
checks that were shrinking and we have delivered optimism. people are going back to work. 6 million of them. 300,000 jobs amount being created. that is why there was that deathly silence out there in that plant. they deliver the wrong thing. ronald reagan is delivering leadership. >> congresswoman ferraro, one minute rebuttal. >> i think what i'm going to have to do is start correcting the vice-president's statistics. there are six more -- 6 million people out of jobs and that's supposed -- in the last administration, despite all our problems, they created 10 million jobs. the housing rate was 14.5% for middle-class americans. under the prior administration, it was 10.6%. if you take a look at the number of people living in poverty as a result of this administration, 6 million people.
by hundred thousand people knocked off disability rolls. you can walk around saying things are great and that's what we're going to be hearing and you have been hearing it on the commercials for the past couple of months. i will become a one-woman truth squad and we will start tonight. >> congresswoman ferraro, i would like to ask you about civil rights. you have in the past been a supporter of tuition tax credits for parochial school and a constitutional amendment to ban blessing. both of these were opposed only by running at -- running mate, but every civil rights organization in the country. now that you are mr. mondale's running mate, have you changed your position on those? >> with reference to the busing vote in 1979, both for its mondale and i agree on the same goal which is nondiscrimination. i just don't agree on the same direction he does on how to achieve it, but i don't find any problem with that. that has been handled by the
court and not being handled by congress and will not be handled by the white house. the goals we both set forth. with reference to tuition tax credits, i have represented a district in queens which is catholic. i represent my district. i've been a great supporter of public school education and that is something for it and i feel very strongly about for the future of this country. this administration over the past several years has been gutted the educational programs available to our young people. it has attempted to knock out telegrams which our money's too young individuals who are poor and cannot afford to go to college -- pell grants which are moneys to young individuals who are poor and cannot afford to go to college. fritz mondale and i feel very strongly that to educate your children, that is an effort and
the way you build up to make a stronger america. this reference to civil rights, you've got to go beyond that. if you take a look at my record in the congress, both in the senate and as vice president, we have extremely strong civil rights records. this administration does not. it has come in in the bob jones case on the side of segregated academies and homicide of discrimination against women, handicapped, and the elderly. in congress, we just passed overwhelmingly the civil rights bill of 190084. -- of 1984, and this administration killed in last week or two in congress. there's a real difference in how the mondale-ferraro administration would address civil-rights. >> in that area of affirmative action, what steps the thing government can take to increase the representation of minorities and women in the workforce,
colleges and university and would you support the use of quotas to achieve this goal? >> i do not support the use of quotas. mr. mondale and i feel very strongly about affirmative action to correct inequities. we believe steps should be taken both through government, for instance the small business of ministration. supported set-asides for minorities and women businesses. that's a positive thing. we do not feel you are s -- but you are hurting anyone else by reaching out with affirmative- action. on the contrary, if you have a growing economy, if you create the jobs, if you allow for small business the opportunity with lower interest rates to reach out and grow, there will be more than enough space for everybody and affirmative-action is a very positive way to deal with discrimination. >> vice president bush, many critics of your administration say it's a less hostile to
minorities in recent memory -- the most hostile to minorities in recent memory. have you encourage that view by supporting tuition tax credits, the anti-busing, and the bob jones case and original opposition to the voting rights act an extension and so forth? >> no, mr. white. think our record on civil rights is a good record. you mentioned the voting rights extended -- extension, it was extended for the long this time by president reagan. we have some problems in attracting the black vote and i think our record deserves better. we have done more for black colleges than any previous administration. we favor enterprise zones and it has been blocked by tip o'neill and that house of representatives. those rig -- those liberals and the house blocked a new idea to bring jobs into the black community across this country. because it's not an old hand out, special federal spending
program, it's blocked there, a good idea. i would like to see that tried. we brought more civil rights cases in the justice department than the previous administration by far. we believe in trying something new to help these black teenage kids, the minimum-wage differential that says look, to an employer, hire these guys. they're willing to work for slightly less than the minimum wage. give him a training job in the private sector. we threw out the old ceta that simply rammed them on to the government payroll and put into place the jobs training act, wonderful legislation that's helping blacks more and more. we think of it in terms of quality of life and that means
interest rates. it's funny -- mr. mondale talks about real interest rates. the real interest rate is what you pay when you try to buy a tv set or a by a car or do whatever it is. the interest rates is for 21.5%. inflation, is that a civil right to have that going off the chart so that you are busting every american family? we have a good record on minority set-asides, more help for black colleges, and we've got it in terms of help for operate -- offering opportunity instead of despair. >> along those lines, many recent studies have indicated the poor and minorities have not shared in the new prosperity generated by the current economic recovery. was it right for your administration to pursue economic policies that require those at the bottom of the economic ladder to wait for
prosperity to trickle down from people are much better off than they? >> mr. white, it is not trickling down. i'm not suggesting there is no poverty, but i'm suggesting the way to work it out is through a real opportunity. in the meantime, the needy are getting more help. human-resources spending is way, way up. aid for dependent children spending is way up. immunization programs are way up. almost every place you can. , contrary to mr. mondale -- i've got to be careful -- contrary to how he goes around just saying everything bad, somebody sees a silver lining and he finds a big black cloud. why non, harvest moon. there's a lot of opportunity. >> congresswoman ferraro, your bottle? >> the vice-president indicates the president signed the voting rights -- , ferraro, your
rebuttal? >> he did sign it because he was required to do so. the reason they haven't and -- i'm delighted the administration is following the law. [applause] >> excuse me. this will be out of my time and not yours -- knowing the people of this city and knowing their restraint and diffidence about a motion, i beseech you, try to hold your applause, please. i'm sorry. >> i have to correct in my 30 seconds that are left the, the vice-president made with reference specifically to a program like afdc. if you take afdc, food stamps, those are programs that have
suffered under this administration. first budget cuts and those are the ones -- in the second part of their term, we were able to restore some of this terribly unfair cuts to poor people in this country. >> by president bush? >> maybe we can't -- vice president bush. >> maybe we should ask the factual -- spending for food stamps is way up under the head -- under the reagan at the station. afdc is up under the reagan administration and not going to be found wrong on that. i'm sure of my facts. we are trying to help and i think we're doing a reasonable job. but we are not going to rest until every single american that wants a job gets a job and until this prosperity and recovery that is benefiting many americans benefits all americans. >> vice-president bush -- one of the most emotional issues in
this campaign has been the separation of that church and state? what are your views specifically with regard to abortion? do you believe it was right for the archbishop of philadelphia to have a letter read in three under five churches urging catholics to fight abortion with their votes? >> i do believe in pluralism. i do believe in separation of church and state. i don't consider abortion a religious issue, i consider it a moral issue. i believe the archbishop has every right to do everything he wants in that direction, just as i never faulted jesse jackson for taking his message to the black pulpits across this country, just as i never objected when the nuclear freeze or anti-nuclear people, many of those movements were led by priests. suddenly, because the catholic bishop or an evangelist feels strongly on a political issue, people are saying it is merging of church and state. we favor, and i say confidently
to the present, we favor chip -- we favor separation of church and state. we favored pluralism. some say you don't think it's right to prohibit a kid from praying in school. for years, kids were allowed to pray in schools. we don't think that the murder of church and state to have a non-mandatory -- we don't think that's the merger of church and state to have a non-mandatory, non-government ordered prayer. yet some are accusing us of injecting religion into politics. i have no problem with with the archbishop does and i have no problem with with the evangelist on the left or the priest on right -- evangelist on the right mps and left, and it didn't bother me during the opposition to the vietnam war was led by priests, encouraging people to break the law and the adage of the civil disobedience thing. our position, separation of church and state, pluralism, know little kids with a minority
religion of some sort is going to feel offended or left out or uncomfortable. but yes, prayer in school. on a voluntary basis. it worked for many, many years until the supreme court ruled differently. i am glad we got this question because i think there has been too much said about religion in politics. we do not believe in the nomination we moving in. it was not our side that raised the question of whether our president was a good christian or not. [applause] that is our position. separation of church and state. respect for all. >> vice-president bush, four years ago, you would have allowed federal financing for abortions in cases of rape and incest as well as when a mother's life was threatened. does your position now agree with that of president reagan, who in sunday's debate came very close to saying that abortion is
murder? >> there has been -- i have to confess, an evolution in my position. there has been 15 million abortions since 1973. i don't take that lightly. there has been a million and a half this year. the president that i do favor a human rights amendment. i favor one that would have an exception for incest and rape and he doesn't. but only for the life of the mother. i agree with him on that. my position has evolved and i would like to see the american who faced with 15 million abortions is an rethinking his or position. i will just stand with the answer that i support the president's position and comfortably from a moral standpoint. >> you will leave it is akin to murder question are >> i support the president's position. >> congresswoman ferraro, what are your views on the separation of church and state with regard to abortion and do you believe it was right for the archbishop
of philadelphia to have those letters read in the pulpits and urge the voters to fight abortion with their vote? >> but me say that i believe sincerely in the separation of church and state, taken from a historical viewpoint, if you go back to the 1600's when people came here, the reason i came to this country was to escape religious persecution. that's the same reason people are coming here today, in the 1940's to escape the nazis and now when they can get at country and escape communism and can come here and practice their religion. our country is founded on the principle our government should be neutral as far as religion is concerned. what has happened during the past several years, and i'm not going to let you lay on me the intrusion of state -- religion into state politics with regard to the president's policy because started in 1980 when this administration came into office and the rev. jerry
falwell became very involved in the campaign. what has happened over the last four years has i think been a real fudging of that line with the separation of church and state. the actions of the archbishop, let me say to you, i feel they have not only right and responsibility to speak up. even though i have been the person have been speaking about, i feel they have the responsibility to do so and i have no problem with it, no more than i did the priest who watched at the time in vietnam and went martin luther king marched. i have no problem with them speaking up. i think they have an obligation as well the right. what i do have a problem with this when the president of the united states gets up in dallas and addresses a group in individuals and says anybody who doesn't support his constitutional a benefit for prayer in schools is intolerant of religions. there are numerous groups who don't support that. numerous religious groups. are they and tolerant of
religion? is that with the president is saying? i also object what i'm told the reverend falwell would pick to our supreme court justices. that's going a little too far and let me say it's more than a fetching of the line, it's a total intrusion and i think it is in violation of our constitution. [applause] >> congresswoman ferraro, as a devout catholic, does that bother you so many leaders of your church disagree with you and do you think you are being treated unfairly by the catholic church? >> let me tell you that i did not come to my position on abortion very lightly. i am a devout catholic and when i was running for congress in 1978, i met with the person i felt very close to, a monsignor, currently a bishop. i spoke about my personal feelings that i would not have an abortion but if i were -- i would not sure if i were to become pregnant because of a rate that would be self righteous.
he said that's not good enough, you can't support that position. that's my religious views and i will accept the teaching of the church, but i cannot impose my religious views on some models. i take an oath as a public official to represent all the people, not just the catholic. when there comes a time i cannot practice my religion and do my job properly, i will resign my job. >> vice president bush, your bottle? >> i respect that statement, i really and truly do. we have a difference on moral question here on abortion. i notice mr. mondale keeps talking in the debate and now has come up here about mr. falwell. i don't know where this canard could have come from about mr. cut -- mr. far well -- mr. paul will picking supreme court justices. ronald reagan has made one superb about standing to the only one he has made, appointed to the supreme court. that was sandra day o'connor. mr. falwell oppose her
nomination. we still have respect for him, but he opposed it. i hope this lays to rest this slander against the president. we want justices who will interpret the constitution cannot legislate. >> congresswoman ferraro, your rebuttal? >> i find it difficult to believe because the platform the republican party passed in dallas, one of the things they did was they said the position on abortion would be a litmus test not only for supreme court justices but other federal justices. that seems to me a blurring of lines of the separation between church and state. >> the next question for mr. boyd. >> like many americans, each of you has recently had an unhappy experience with the internal revenue service. [laughter] i am going to prolong your ordeal. congresswoman ferraro, you disagree with the rule that says a candidate must report the income or assets of his or her
spouse if you get any benefit from them. your husband's tax returns show you did benefit because he paid the mortgage and property taxes on your homes. the house ethics committee is examining this question, but it will report its findings until after the election. would you be willing to ask that committee controlled by democrats to hurry up its work and report before the election? >> let me say to you that i already did that. i wanted them to move ahead. if you recall, i spent about one hour and 45 minutes speaking to 200 reporters on august 21, the day after i was required to file by financial statement. i sat for as long as they had questions on the issue and i believe they were satisfied. i filed more information that any of their candidate for national office in this country. not only did i agree to file my tax returns after a little bit of prodding, has been agreed to file his with not only the
ethics committee but that fec. the action you are speaking about with the ethics committee was started by a right wing legal organization, foundation, no way i would have to, that there would be an automatic inquiry. we have filed the necessary papers. i have asked them to move along. unfortunately, i don't know if they will move. i would like that to be taken care of any way because i just wanted cleared up. >> since that press conference under family finances kabi filed a new report with the ethics committee and this showed your previous reports were full of mistakes and emissions. -- mistakes and omissions. he filed for 12 trips paid for by special-interest groups. do you think that showed good leadership to blame all of this on sloppy work by your accountant? >> what it shows, and it was
truly that i hired an accountant who had been with our family for well over 40 years, he was filling out those ethics forms. i did not spend it the time with him. i just gave him my tax information and he did it. i have to tell me what we have done sense -- i have hired a marvelous accountant, i have spent a lot of time have again go through those ethics forms, and he will be do my taxes over the next eight years while we are in the white house. the american public can be sure it is all taken care of. >> last year, he paid 13% of your income in federal taxes. according to the irs, someone normally pays 28% of his income. what you did was perfectly legal. do you think it's fair or do you think there's something wrong with tax laws that allow such deductions for wealthy individuals? >> i liked the way mrs. ferraro
and mr. is a carl reported. if reported federal taxes and state and local taxes. that year, i happen to bail out of state and local taxes which are deducted from the other. i looked at the other day and we have paid 42% of our gross income in taxes. mr. mondale the other night took -- i will be honest, i thought it was a cheap shot at me. we did little looking around to see about his. we can not find his 1981 tax return. it might have been released. but we did find test beds his income for those three years is $1,400,000. i think he paid about the same percentage i did in total taxes. he also made a reference that troubled me very much. he was talking about my chauffeur. i am driven to work by the secret service. so is mrs. ferraro.
so is mrs. -- so is mr. mondale. they protected his life for four years and now they have done a beautiful job for barbara and i and they saved the life of the president of the night of states. i thought that was a cheap shot to try to divide class, rich and poor. it is and whether mrs. ferraro is doing well. i think they are doing pretty well. i know barbara and i are doing well. mr. mondale is doing well with $1.4 million in income. the question is is the tax cut fair? are people getting a fair break? the answer is the rich are paying 6% more on taxes and the poor are getting a better break. those lower and middle income people that have borne the burden for a long, long time. yes, i favor disclosure. i have always disclosed. this year, i have my taxes and everything i own in a blind trust. tax returnen sign my
but there seemed to be an interest in it so we went to the ethics committee and they agreed to change the trust and the trust has been revealed and i was glad to see i paid 42% of my gross income in taxes. [applause] >> mr. vice president, how can you claim your home is in maine for tax purposes and that the same time claim your home is in texas for voting purposes? are you a texan or doing glitter? >> i am a texan, but i have one house. under the law, every taxpayer is allowed when he sells a house to buy a house and get the rollover. i may hire -- she says she has a new good accountant. i would like to get his name and phone number. [laughter] i think i paid too much in the way of taxes and residents, legal residents for voting is very the very -- is a very
different. the domicile, very different. they say there -- they say you are living in the vice president's house. i've got problems with the irs. so do a lot of people out there. i think i paid too much. i would like to get some money back. [laughter] >> congresswoman ferraro, your rebuttal? >> let me just say i would be glad to give the vice-president my count the number, but i will warn you he is expensive. i think the tax system and our government uses is fair. i think the tax system is unfair but it's not something we can address in the short term. the tax cut by president bush and i got last three years ago that the president gave out, it is not fair. if you earn $200,000, you got a $25,000 tax cut. if you earn between $20,000 and a $40,000, you may have got $100. if you made less than $10,000,
he suffered a loss of $400. that is not there. it is basically not fair. it is not only unfair, but economically, as are near destroyed this country. that is one of the reasons we are facing these enormous deficits we have today. >> mr. vice president? >> i think i have said all i want to say. i did not fully address myself to the question of disclosure. i led the fight in the house of representatives -- i was in the house for a couple of terms -- and i led the fight for disclosure. before i went into this job, i disclosed everything we had. we did not have any private corporation, but i disclosed absolutely everything. arthur andersen made out at the assets of liability statement that went further than any other one. to protect the public interest, we went into this blind trust. i believe in the blind trust because i believe a public official in this kind of job ought not to know whether he's
going to benefit directly or indirectly by some holding he might have or something of that nature. i support full disclosure. >> thank you. that is the part of this debate devoted to domestic affairs. we will now turn to foreign affairs. >> it is president bush, since your administration came to power, the president has threatened a stern response against terrorism. yet murderous attacks have continued in london on and the middle east. who is to blame -- in lebanon and the middle east? you have been the director of the central intelligence agency, was committed to stop? terrorism is very, very difficult to stop and i think everybody knows that. we have ambassadors killed in sudan and lebanon some time ago. when you see that is really building in lebanon after the death of our marines, you see
that hit by terrorism, the israelis, with all their experience fighting terrorism, you know it is difficult. when you see ayatollah khamenei with his radical islam resorting to government-sponsored terrorism, it is very difficult. the intelligence business can do a good job and i've always one that defends the central intelligence agency. i believe we ought to strengthen it and i believe we still have the best foreign intelligence business in the world. but it is very difficult to get the source information you need to go after something as shadowy as international terror. there was a difference between iran and what happened in lebanon. in iran, you have a government holding the u.s. embassy, the government censuring the takeover of that embassy by those students. the government negotiating with the united states government for the release. in lebanon, the terror that
happened at the embassy, you have the government there that wants to help fight against terrorism. but because of that may lay in the middle east that is there today and has been there yesterday and the day before, everyone who has had experience in that area and knows it is a very different thing. what we have got to do is get absolutely the best security possible. i do not think you can go assigning blame. the president is the best i've ever seen accepting that. he has been wonderful about that and everything that happens. but fair minded people who understand international terror know it is hard to guard against. the answer really lies in the middle east and terrorism happening all the world is a solution to the palestine question. but to follow on to camp david under the umbrella of the reagan september of 1982 initiative. that will reduce terror. it will not eliminate it. >> you mentioned how many -- some charge the previous
administration to be almost helpless against him and at muammar gaddafi. what have you done against arab states that foment this kind of terrorism question are >> what have we done to support arab states to what to stand up against international terrorists quite different. we believe in supporting without uprising the security of israel in any way, because they are our one strategic ally of the area, one democracy in the area, our relationship with them has never been better. we believe in reaching out to the gulf cooperative council states of moderate arab states in that world and help them with defensive weapons to guard against international terror or radical islam perpetuated by committee. because we have done that -- pep -- -- perpetrated by ayatollah committee. i believe we have helped keep the peace in the persian gulf. >> you and former vice president
mondale have criticized the president over the bombings in london on. what would you do to prevent such attacks? >> but me first say that terrorism is a global problem and let me say secondly that mr. bush has referred to the embassy that was held in iran -- while i was at the white house in january in 1981 when those hostages, all 52 of them came home alive, it was at that time that president reagan gave a speech welcoming home as america did, we were so excited to see them back. but what he said was the united states has been embarrassed for the last time. we're going to stand tall and if this ever happens again, there will be swift and immediate steps taken to redress the wrong our country has suffered. in april of 1983, i was in
beirut and visited the ambassador at the embassy. two weeks later, that embassy was bombed. at that time, take a look at the crazy activity of terrorists, you can't blame anybody. they're going to do crazy things that you don't know what's going to happen. the following october, there is another bombing. that took place at the marine barracks where there were 242 young men who were killed. right after that bombing occurred, there was a commission set up called along commission. commission did a -- called all along the commission. it did a study of for the marines were sleeping and found there was negligence. they did not have propagates up proper precautions to stop the trucks from coming in. the long commission issued a report and president reagan got up and that i've commander in chief, i take responsibility. we all waited for him to take
responsibility. last month, we had our third bombing. the first embassy there was no gate. the second time with our marines, the gate was open. the third time, the gate was there but had not been installed. what was the president's reaction? our people were placed in that embassy in an unsecured time and the marines were guarding it were left to go away and there were other people guarding the embassy. again, the president said iris -- i assume responsibility. i would like to know what that means? are we going to take proper precautions before we put americans in situations where they are in danger or are we just going to walk away or is this president going to take some action? >> some democrats cringe at the word of spine and -- spying and covert activity. do you believe both of them have a legitimate role in countering terrorism rubble world-class car >> i believe they have a
legitimate role in gathering information. the cia in the last bombing gave information to our administration with reference to the actual threats that it was going to be bombed. there is legitimate reason for the cia -- to gather intelligence information. but when i see them doing things like they're doing in central america, supporting a covert war, i don't support that kind of activity. the cia is there to protect our government, not their to subvert other governments. >> vice president bush? [applause] please. >> i think i just heard mrs. ross they should go with all covert action. if so, that has very serious ramifications as the intelligence community does. this is serious business and sometimes it's quiet support for a friend. i will leave that one there. but let me help you with the difference between iran and the embassy in lebanon.
iran, we were held by foreign government. in lebanon, he had wanted terrorist action where the government opposed it. we went to lebanon to give peace a chance, to stop the bombing of civilians in beirut, to remove 13,000 terrorist from lebanon, and we did. we saw the formation of a government of reconciliation and for somebody to suggest as our opponents have that these men died in shame, they better not tell parents of those young marines. they gave peace a chance and our allies were with us, the british, french and italians. >> congresswoman ferraro? >> let me just say that i always resent vice-president bush and your patronizing attitude that you have to teach me about foreign policy. [applause] i have been a member of congress for six years and i was there when the embassy was held hostage in iran that i have seen what has happened in the past several months, 70 months of
your administration. secondly, please don't categorize my answer to either leave the interpretation of the american people who are watching this debate. [applause] let me say further that no one has ever said those young men were killed and the negligence of this administration or others died in shame. no one who has a child who is 90 or 20 years old would say that about the loss of anyone else's child. >> mr. white? [applause] >> congresswoman ferraro, you have repeatedly said he would not want your son to die in an undeclared war for an answer because. recently, your running mate, mr. mondale, suggested that may become necessary to erect a military quarantine on nicaragua. under what circumstances would you advocate the use of military forces in central america? >> i would advocate the use of force to protect the security of our country, protect our
security interests, or protect our people or the interest of our friends and neighbors. begun -- when mr. mondale -- i am jumping the gun little bit. when mr. mondale refer to the quarantine of central america, a country lead central america, what he is right to as a last resort after all other means of attempting to settle the situation in that region of the world have been exhausted. quite frankly, what is being done in this administration, instead of promoting the process which is the process in place in support of mexico and colombia and panama and bad as we love. instead of supporting the process, our administration has in nicaragua in supporting
covert activities to keep that revolution going to overthrow the sandinista government. also the door is not pushing the head of the government to move toward a correction of the civil rights and human rights problems that existed there. now, this administration seems almost befuddled by the fact that nicaragua is moving to participate in the process. and also the door, through its president is reaching out in order to negotiate peace. what you do is deal first through negotiation. force is not a first resort, but certainly a last resort in any instance. >> follow-up, please? >> many times and as history, the united states has gone to war to defend freedom of the land. that's your answer me he would be willing to forgo the use of
military force even if it meant the establishment of a soviet dictatorship so close to our borders? >> i assume you're speaking about the government of nicaragua? we would work with that government to achieve a pluralistic society. we have elections coming up on november 4. we have to work with them to achieve a peaceful solution to bring about a pluralistic country. i am not willing to live with a force that could be a danger to our country, certainly i would see our country would be their putting all kinds of pressure on the neighboring countries of honduras, costa rica, el salvador, to promote the kind of society we can live with in this country. >> vice president bush, both cuba and nicaragua are reported to be making preparations to defend themselves against an american invasion which they
claim could come this far -- could come this fall. some of your opponents in congress say the administration could be planning a december surprise invasion. can you tell us what circumstances a reelected reagan administration would consider using force in central america? >> we don't think we would be required to use force. let me point out there are 2000 cuban military there are 55 american military in el salvador. i went down in the instructions to the president to speak in el salvador and told them that they had to move with the president of el salvador to respect hunal rights. they have done. that they're moving well. i'm not saying it's perfect but the difference between el salvador and nicaragua is light
night and day. el salvador went to the polls and he was elected by 70% of the people in a free election. in nicaragua you have something very different which have you a group that came into power talking democracy. they have aborted their democracy. they have humeyated the holley father. they are cracked down on the only press there, something that should concern every american which they have not had any human rights at all. they are m they will not permit free elections. mr. cruise who was to be the only challenger to nicaragua, mr. or tegga went down there and found the ground rules were so unfair he couldn't even launch a campaign. one is devoid of human rights. we don't like it frankly when nicaragua exports its revolution or serve it is
conduit for supplies coming in from such democracy as the soviet union and cuba to try to destabilize ell value v.a. dor. yes, we're concerned about that because we want to see this trend toward democracy continue. there have been 13 countries move towards the democratic route. and let me say grenade da is not unrelated. we gave those four tiny countries a chance. we saved the lives in most of those a thousand students said they were in jeopardy. that was a proud moment because we did stand up for democracy. but in terms of threat of these countries nuclear weapons, no there is not that kind of a threat. it's mr. mondale that proposed the quarantine, not ronald reagan. >> considering this countries long respect with international law, was it right for the
united states to be involved with nicaragua a country we're not at war with and to refuse the world war to ajude kate that dispute? >> i support what we're doing which it was supported to the congress under the law which i support it. my only regret is the aid for the con tryst, those people that are fighting, we call them freedom fighters. they want to see the democracy perfected in nicaragua. am i to understand from this assault on covert action nowhere in the world would we do something off base when ms. ferraro said she would never support it yes, we're for the contras, and let me tell you another fact, everyone who is not for this, everyone who wants to let that government pr prevail just like castro did.
less than 5% of the contras supported him. these are people that wanted a revolution. these are people that felt the revolution was betrayed. these are people that support human rights. yes, we should support them. >> i spent a good deal of time there in january and spoke with the contras in nicaragua and el salvador. let me say things as it exist now because of this administration policies, is not getting better. as a matter of fact the number of troops they have accumulated since the administration has started has risen from 12 to 50,000. and the number of advice source has also increased. i did not support the mining of the harbors in mick nicaragua. it is a violation of international law.
congress did not support it and as a matter of fact, just the week congress voted to cut off aid to nicaragua unless and until a request is made and there is evidence of need for it and the congress aproves it again in march. so the covert activities which i oppose in nicaragua, those c.i.a. activities in that specific country are not supported by the congress and not supported by the majority of people throughout this country. >> vice president bush. >> well, i would like to make the distinction again between those countries that are searching for democracy and the handful of countries that have totally violated human rights and going the other route. or tagega, the nicaragua san dan niece tass is in devoud -- they don't believe in all the
values that we believe in. so it is our policy to support the democracies there and when you have freedom fight thears want to perfect that revolution and go the democratic route, we believe in giving them support. we are for negotiation, three dollars out of every four we've sent down there has been for economic aid for people to enjoy life. one fourlingt only was military. you wouldn't get that from listening to mr. mondale. >> vice president bush, the last three republican administrations, none of them soft on communism met with the soviets and got agreements on arms control. the soviets haven't changed that much. can you tell us why president reagan has not met with them at all? >> yes, i can.
you mentioned the meeting, those were broken off under the carter mondale days. there have been three separate soif yet leaders. during that in three and a half years three separate leaders. the soviets have not been willing to talk. we are the ones that went to the table in n.i.f. we had a good proposal, ban nuclear force weapons and if you won't do that don't leave your allies in europe with 1200 of these things and your alliance with none. we didn't think that's the way to keep the peace. the president went when he came into office made a proposal start, and when the soviets said we don't like that proposal, we said we'll be more
flexible. i at the urging of the ept went to gentlemen neevecr v.a. and laid on the table a ban for all chemical weapons. we said let's come together, we'll see what you're doing but let's save the kids of this world from chemical weapons, a brilliant propose toll get rid of all of them and the soviets no, no new york city. and they're not willing to tell us the base of how many troops they have. there's four sessions. we've had an agreement with themton hot line. but the carter mondale made an agreement but the democratic senate, they were a democratic senate wouldn't even rat fi that agreement. it was flawed, it was unverifiable and it was not good. our president wants to reduce, not just to stop reduce
dramatically nuclear weapons. and when the soviets know their going to have this strong president to deal with, then they'll talk. but if they think the opposition before they sit down are going to give up and go for a freeze that locks in infororty in europe they may just sweat it out for for more weeks. >> you were once quoted as saying a nuclear war is winnable? >> no, i don't think it's winnable. i was quoted wrong. i never thought that. in soviet planning i did learn that and i don't think there would be any disagreement on that. but i agree with the president. it should never be fought. nuclear weapons should never be fought with and that's our approach. so therefore, let's encourage
the soviets to come to the table as we did at the meeting. i wish everybody could have seen that one t. president given the fact all of these nuclear meetings excellent right on top of that subject matter. i bet he said this spt calling the shots, we better move. i think it is in the interest of the soviet union to make an agreement just as it is in the interest of the united states. they're not deterred by rhetoric. i've lived in a commune nist country. it's not rhetoric, it's self-interest of those countries. >> some democrats have said that verification may not be possible. how would you verify such an agreement and make sure the soviets are not cheating? >> i don't think there is an
issue more important than the issue of foreign peace. and eleanor roosevelt said it's not enough to want peace, you must believe in it. this administrations policies have indicated quite the opposite. the last time i heard vice president bush bush blame the fact they didn't meet with the soviet union. he said the reason was because there were three soviet leaders in the last three and a half years. i got a computer print out. it's five pages of people leaders have met with. they're big people, five page it is soviet leaders have met with and somehow they couldn't meet with the president of the united states. in addition to not meeting,
this is the first president since the start of neglecting arms control agreement who has not negotiated one but he's been opposed to every other one that's been neglected. let me just say that with reference to the vice president's comments about the intent and the desire of the united states in this administration, the soviet union did walk out of the talks, i agree. but it seems to e many me that in 1982 when the administration presented it's start proposal, it wasn't a realistic proposal. it dealt just with land based nuclear missiles which is where the soviets had the buck of their missiles. but in 1982 their own
negotiator came out with a walk in the woods proposal which would have limited the number of nuclear arms in europe. that proposal was turned down by the administration. i'm delighted that they met with -- but they could have met with him in 1981 and in 1982 as well. i guess my -- speaking limits, i have to impose a limit on you. >> vice president bush decpwhrifment think there is a difference in terms of meeting. and the soviet union will meet with a lot of different people. we've been very close touch with others that have met with the leaders of the soviet union. but that's quite different than meeting with the president of the united states.
the soviets say we'll have a meeting when we think there can be progress and yet they left those talks. it was the soviet union that was unwilling to discuss the walk in the woods which they gunned it down first tapped record is clear on that. ms. ferraro mentioned the inflexibility on our position on strategic arms. yes we tried to reduce those in those weapons and we said if that's not good enough we'll talk about the bombers and the planes. so that's an important point in terms of negotiations. >> you will have two minutes to rebut. >> you robbed me of the follow up. >> most polls show that the americans feel that the republicans more than the democrats are better able to
keep the u.s. out of war. we've had four years of relative peace under prptl president reagan. how can you convince the world it would be a safer place under carter mondale? >> i think first of all you have to take a look at the current situation. we have 50,000 war heads, we are building five to six a day and have been doing that since this administration came io office. i think you can recognize they're not going to do much in the future. since they have done nothing, do we conlt to build? vice president mondale has indicated what he would do is contact his soviet count part and set up an annual summit meeting. i don't think you can start negotiating until you start talking. he would issue a challenge and
that would be in the nature of temporary mutual verfirblee more tear to hall testing in the air, in the atmosphere that would respond with the challenge from the soviet union we hope to sit down and negotiate a treaty. that was done in 1960 -- what that would do is that would give tuss opportunity to sit down and negotiate a treaty. that was done in 1960 by president kennedy -- 1963. he issued a challenge to the soviet union. he said we will not test in the atmosphere if you will not. they did not. in two months they sat down and negotiated a treaty. we do not have to worry about that type of testing.
it can be done, it will be done if you have the will to do it. it is mutual, it is verifyable and it is a challenge and if that were not met, if testing were to resume, then we would continue testing as well. >> congresswoman ferraro, you have had little or no experience in military matters and yet you might some day find yourself commander in chief of the armed forces. how can you convince a potential enemy you would know what to do to protect this nation's security and do you think the soviets might be teverted to take advantage of you because you are a woman? >> have you saying i would have to have naught a war in order to love peace? >> i'm not saying that. i asked you -- you know what i asked. >> i think what happens is when you try to equate whether or
not i've had military experience, that's the natural conclusion. it's about as valid as saying you'd have to be black in order to offend racism. that's not so. i think if you take a look at where i've been, both in the congress and where i intend to go, the type of person i am, i think that the people of this country can rely on the fact that i will be a leader. i don't think the soviet up union can sit down and make a determination what i will do if i'm in a position to do something with reference to the soviet union. i'm prepared to do whatever is necessary to secure this country and make sure that is maintained. secondly if the soviet union were toffer believe they could challenge the united states in any nuclear force or otherwise,
they would be ashured they would be met with swift, concise and certain retaliation . let me say one other thing. the most important thing i think as a leader one has to do is get to the point where you're not put into that position. and the way you get to that position of moving away from having to make a decision on force or anything else is by moving toward arms control. and that's not what has been done over the past four years. i think if you were to take a look at the failures of this administration, that would have to be number one. i would not put myself in that position as a leader of this country. i will move immediately towards arms control negotiations. >> for my follow i'm going to borrow from the sunday night debate and say what is the single most important question
you would like to ask your opponent here on foreign policy? >> i don't have a single most question. i guess the concern i have as a vice presidential candidate but as a citizen in this country, my concern is we are not doing anything to stop the arms race. and it seems to me if we keep talking about military infear orty which we do not have, we are at a compable level with the soviet union. our joint chiefs of staff said they would not exchange our military power for theirs. i guess i want the commitment their going to do something about making this a safer world for all of us. >> vice president bush four years ago the president snitted to negotiate seriously. since then we have spent almost a trillion dollars on defense.
the sevyotes are building as rapidly as we are and there are no negotiations. it was president's whole strategy wrong? >> no i think it was not only correct but is correct. you've got to go back where we were. clearly when we came into office the american people recognized we had slipped into positions on various things. some of our planes were older than the pilots, ships that couldn't go out to sea. and you had a major problem with the military. actually the morale wasn't very good either. so we've had to strengthen the military and we're well on the way to getting that job done. america is back in terms of military strength, in terms of our ability to deter agregs and keep the peace. all at the same time however we have made proposals, sound proposals on reducing nuclear
weapons. the strategic arms reduction talks were good propolesles and the soviets left the table. i wish the soviet union had continued them. the chemical weapon treaty to ban all chemical weapons it was our initiative. we wish they would move toward to verification so everybody would know whether the other side is keeping its word but more important you'd reduce the level of terror. we are talking to them about conventional force reduction. we've talked to them about human rights. i've met with them and we mention and we try to do something about the human rights question. the suppression of soviet jew social security intolerable so we have to keep pushing forward. it is my view that because this president has been strong and because we've addressed the
imbalances and i think the soviets are more likely to make a deal. they made a treaty when they thought we were going to depli a system. i am optimistic when they realize we have this strong principled president to negotiate with and strong on arms control. >> now i'll give you a chance to ask the question you'd most like to ask of your opponent. >> i str none to ask of her but i'd sure like to use this time. i don't have any questions. but we are so different -- the reagan bush administration is so different from the carter mondale administration the people are going to have a
clear choice. it's where we came in 21% on interest rates, despair, no leadership, blaming the american people for failed leadership. or another option, keep this recovery going until it benefits everybody, peace at home, peace abroad, prosperity opportunity. i'd like to hear her talk on these things but the yell e low light is flashing so we'll leave it there. >> i think the vice president comment about the carter mondale administration is an indication that tip fice this administration. it's an administration that looks backwards and not forward into the future. i'm also tickled by their comments on human rights. the soviet union in 1979 allowed 79,000 people to immigrate. because of this administration's policies over
the past four years 1300 people got out of the soviet union in 1983 and 1984. this administration has spent a trillion dollars on defense but hadn't gotten a trillion dollars of security. >> we then can go to the closing statements. each statement will be four minutes in length and we begin with the vice president. >> in a couple of weeks the american people will be faced with a choice. it's the clearest choice in some 50 years. and the choice is do we move forward with strength and prosperity or do we go back to weakness, despair, discrpt? ronl reagan and i have put our trust in the american people. we have moved some of the power away from washington d.c. and put it back with the people.
we're pulling together. the neighborhoods are safer, your sons and daughters are doing better in school, test scores are going up. there is a new opportunity in the future, science, technology and space offering opportunity to everybody coming up. and abroad there is new leadership and respected. and ronald reagan is the strong leader of the free world. and it's a joy to serve with a president who does not apologize for the united states of america. mr. mondale on the other hand has one ood, attack the american people. and then he wants to repeal indexing, the only protection for those at the lowest end of the scale have to protect them. we owe our country too much to
go back to that approach. i started a business. i know what it is to have a dream and work hard and participate in the american dream. and some f you have finishing high school or college and some of you are starting out in the working place. and we want for you america's greatest gift and that is opportunity. and peace, yes, i did serve in combat. i was shot down when i was a young kid, scared to death. and i saw friends die. but that heightened my convictions about peace. it is absolutely essential we guarantee the young people they will not know the agony of war. america's gift, opportunity and peace. now we do have some unfinished business. we must continue to go ahead. the world is too complex to go
back to vas silation and weakness. there is too much going on to go back to the failed policies of the past. the future is too bright not to give it our best shot. together we can go forward and lift america up to meet her greatest dreams. thank you very much. [applause] >> i must say now in matters of you will be allowed apluse at the end of your statements. >> being a candidate for vice president of my party is the greatest honor i have ever had. but it's not only a personal achievement and the bond i feel across this country with women
across the country. i wouldn't be standing here if my party didn't stand for the values it does, for fairness and equal opportunity. those values make our country strong t. future of this country being strong is what this election is all about. over the last two months i have involved all across this country talking to the people about the future. i was in kentucky talking to a family about deficits and how high interest rates are going to effect his job. every place i go i see young parents who say to me what are we going to do to stop this nuclear arms race. i was in ohio a week and a half ago and they live next to a toxic dump and they are worried about the fact those tixens are seeping into the water they
drink. those people love this country. but it's not the patism you're seeing as you watch television these days. it's a pride in this country that is strong enough to meet the challenges of the future. we find jobs for the eight and a half million people employed in this country, we'll make this economy stronger and that will be a pate ot i can act. we cut those interest rates, young people can buy houses. that's profamily and that would be a pate ot i can act. we educate our children, they're going to be able to compete in a world economy and that makes us stronger. you stop the arms race and make this a safer world. when we keep the peace, young men don't die.
those are the key to the future. and who can be the leader for the future. walter mondale was attorney general of minnesota, he led the fight for a man who could not afford to get justice because he couldn't afford a lawyer. when he was in the senate he fought for child nutrition programs, he wrote the fair housing act. he even investigated the concerns and abuses of migrant workers. why did he do that? those weren't popular causes. children don't vote and migrant workers aren't exactly a powerful lobby in this country. he did it because it's right. mondale said heed rather lose a battle over seenssi than win one over self-interest. this campaign is not over. for our country, for our
future, for the principles we believe in walter mondale and i have just begun to fight. [applause] >> thank you very much. i'd like to thank vice president bush, congresswomen ferraro, the members of our panel for joining us in this league of women voters debate. i'd like to join you in thanking them t city of philadelphia and women voters t. presidential debate will take place on october 21 and fl begin at 8:00 eastern time. we hope you join us on the 21st.
>> 28 years ago today the 1994 presidential debates, ronl reagan and george bush won that election with 98% of the vote.
ferraro and mondale won only two dates. it was the biggest presidential win since 1964. we are about five and a half hours from tonight's debate at center college in kentucky. our coverage on c-span will get under way at 7:00 eastern. our prevute coverage starts at 7:00 eastern. it is an hour and a half long and it will be moderated. following that we will open up our phone lines and get your reaction. all of that again, getting underway at 7:00. we've been having our cameras up and walking around the campus and taking a look at sights and sounds of things going on.
this is inside the speakers area just outside the norton center and the free speech zones. they have been used here at center college and other areas in the past where folks can come out and speak out on their supportive candidates and issues as you see in front of you. take a live look here on c-span. >> involving an american family aand a 13-year-old girl for sex. they tried to sell one of their other children in an illegal
adoption to a police officer for $400. brkt inaudible brktdd
>> last year in the general assembly, representatives sponsored a bill to address some of the need with have in our state legislation regarding [inaudible] other states around us have incorporated safe harbor laws. safe harbor protects the child victims of sex trafficking. what we know -- this is the campus of center college in kentucky. this is the speaker's park area they have set up by the debate site. they have made an area that
allows 15 minutes at the microphone and allows them to hand out literature. the advocate messenger in kentucky wrote a number of groups that signed up including the organization the anti-poverty group and also the boil county public library securing some free speech time. another way for you to weigh in with your opinion is our facebook page. we're asking the question what would you ask the candidates in the debates. joy would ask both of the candidates are you in favor of lifting the income cap on social security so all income will be taxed and mike would ask is it correct that it's not china who is the biggest shareholder of our national debt wut the national reserve.
you can weigh in with your question. it's our facebook page. >> earlier today we spoke with the heads of the republican and democratic campaign committees. they talked about how their organizations are spending money as election day neers. this is from this morning's washington journal. >> the executive director of the congressional committee. we're joined by robby who is the democratic congressional campaign committee. thank you for being here. the balance of the house is our decision here. here is from david who is the house guru over at the political report with his october 5 posting. and he says with a little over a month to go, we are shifting our forecast slightly to the
net gain of between 0 and 10 seats. for the past few months our forecast has called for a g.o.p. gain of two seats and 8 seats. so things are looking brighter for the democrats. guest: yes. the fact that we have offensive seats at all is amazing after those wince which we feel good about where our strategy is. we've been going on offense. there are eight seats we're going to pick up before election day since we are not contested. you got a seat in north carolina, a seat in arkansas and a seat in indiana and a seat in california. we feel good about where we're going. we know this is going to be a tight election. and this is a crunch time for both of the parties. host: he goes on to handicap
the balance of the house like this saying that republicans by no means have fallen into a sink hole here. they have a need to knock off between 35 and 40 g.o.p. incumbents yet today there are only 35 g.o.p. income bents and only eight in likely republican category. guest: well we need 25 seats to take back the house. and those are his rankings. what i can tell you is there are e6 seats across the country right now that president obama won in the last election that are controlled by lepcans or brand new seats not controlled by a democrat right now. we feel terrific about our prospects. we have 53 candidates right now on our program that highlights our best campaigns. that's twice the number of seats that we need to take back the majority. so there is presentty of
capacity for us to take this back. washington, as you saw is continuing to move the in our liking host: by our preliminary count there are 58 republicans sitting in seats president obama won in 2008 only slightly down from 62. in the eight seats won by john carry all eight are in serious jeopardy but in the 50 held seats one by obama only a majority, 26 to be exact aren't even on democrat target list and sit in the republican column. guest: we have 53 candidates on our list that have met our highest benchmarks running professional campaigns. so i feel con fy gent. we have more than tweist twice the number of races in play we
need to take back the house. and beyond that we have 75 races today across the country are competitive. we feel over r50 of those are really in play. that's plenty of seats. host: romney tacking closer to the center. on tuesday the candidate repeatedly vowed he would bay prolife president. he said there is no legislation with regards to abortion that i'm familiar with that would become part of my ageneral da. do the republican endumb bents running trying to seek reelection, is that okay there is no abortion legislation? guest: i think the voters are focusedton economy right now. and i think that's most important getting jobs back in the country.
the democrats continue to focus on social issues while we're focusing on the economy and i think the voters want to hear if we can fix the economy we can get to those other issues later but that's the number one job for our republican congress and romney. host: the dividends of the debate victory. let me turn to you. how big of an impact did mitt romney's performance in the last debate have? huge. more democrats are registering and voting early. in the eight battleground states republicans have maintained their advantage or cut into the democrats in all but one nevada. since 2008 republicans have kept their advantages in colorado and new hampshire and goes on to say that this is benefiting in early voting the republicans which could have an impact down ballot.
guest: i'm not concerned at all because this is not about winning over republicans, it's about wibbing over swing voters. in 2008 there were that left us and went to the republicans cycle. it's about winning those swing voters. this election is about jobs and the problem is the tea party congress legislated to redefine rape and take away continue acception choices. they didn't great more jobs. we are focused on those swing voters and that's what is going to make the difference. we're very happy with the early vote numbers. we're seeing the lines stretching a long way i in iowa when the early voting started there. host: political say you need 35, 40 because you're likely to
lose some of your encome bents are likely to lose. what is your number? >> we feel really good about that right now. it was a rough cycle last cycle and if one can survive in 2010, they can survive anything. these folks are ironclad, they are a good fit for their district. so we feel very good about all of them. we need to net 25 seats. i feel good about all of them right now so we're focused on picking up those 25. host: what is your reaction on that? >> he feels good about kissell because he's putting no money into that race in the charlotte area. they'll soon be walking from that race in utah. as i said before, we have eight seats they are not contesting right now and we have an opportunity to pick up those eight and we go beyond from
there. we believe we've done a great service to the country by eliminating the blue dog democrats and we'll finish off that job this cycle. i think the thing that we can both agree on is we are not just in presidential states. most of the house races are going to be outside or at least 50% of the races are going to be outside of presidential targeted states in california and illinois. and there was talk about how illinois was going to be for the democrats and we feel great about our prospects there host: we're having a long discussion about the balance of the house. before we get to viewer phone calls i want to ask both of you to tell our viewers why these congressional races matter. guest: i think the house is where everything gets done
whether it's democratic or republican. if you look at the greatest things on both sides on both parties whether it's reagan tax cuts which were developed out of the house and reagan took up later. if you look at welfare reform developed in the house and took up later. and on the democratic side it was the house pushing for obama carry. if you are a partisan and you want to get something moving in the country you focus on the house. the others kind of do what the house does. guest: this is something we would agree on. i think the house is incredibly important. it is the driver of helping to create jobs. and i actually think that's why this election is so important because the tea party republicans were elected to congress with a mandate to create jobs, get something done. and as i said earlier, they named more post offices than
any other congress in history. not a single job was created. they focused on social issues and voters are having buyers remorse. do we want a house that's going to create jobs? >> democratic caller go ahead. caller:. this is a question for mr. harrison. in 2010 the republicans took the majority in the house and their approval rating sank to 10, 12% and it's been sitting there ever since. i believe it's because they got our economy downgraded because they wouldn't pass our debt ceiling and then they passed the debt ceiling and got us downgraded for nothing. but maybe you could tell us, why do you think this is? and just as a comment i just can't believe that anyone would want to keep a republican encome bent in office in
congress right now. they've done absolutely nothing in the last two and hay half years. thank you. guest: thank you for your thoughts. i think the important thing to remember here is what the house has 13 jobs bills sitting in the senate. you're right the senate has done nothing over the last four years. they haven't even passed a budget in the last three years. we do have a do nothing senate. the house has tried to pass some bills that have gone over to the senate to die. we look forward to a republican senate so we can get jobs bills and pass a budget. which would be a shocking thing for this washington. host: we have our cameras in kentucky for the debate. over the next 45 minutes we
have about eight center college students joining us for the program to ask these gentlemen questions. center college was founded in 1819 and our first student from center college. go ahead. >> my question is what has been the impact of students on congressional races? host: can you repeat that caller: what has been the impact of super pacs on congressional races? guest: their impact has been tremendous unfortunately. we didn't lose the 2010 election to republicans we lost it to the super pacs they were funding. we actually out spent the republicans by $20 million. but we were out spenlt by the
super pacs by $30 million. and the question is why. what is happening here? well, what is happening is that the tea party republican congress continues to toe the line, more tax breaks for mill nares, protecting oil companies and helping out insurance companies. they want to end the medicare guarantee as we know it and turn seniors over to insurance companies to fend for themselves. it is clear why this is happening and that's why this election is so important. we need folkes to turn out and reject the tea party agenda that the coke brothers are funding. host: do you want to respond? guest: i am glad robby is watching his own commercials. he needs to tone it down a little bit because that isn't going to get us anywhere. tea party congress, it's funny wear talking about that. boehner can go to any district
in the country. we have a standing position that we'll pay for nancy to go to any of our competitive districts. we're waiting on them to take us up on that offer. we're going to bring nancy into any district. we know what her abblingt is in the country, it's dismal. if you want to talk about party leaders and where that stands, we look forward to doing that. overall the super pac social security a little bit of an overblown story in the house. i think the r.c.c. will out spend the super pacs. these are leading the way, they have their super pacs, we have ours. they outspent us during the month of september. it hadn't helped that much. i think it's one of those things we need to be focused on. i in my party would go back to aloug us to get more cribses to
the party committees. we believe that is a better way to go. there are those who believe we need to restrict the party and money flowed somewhere and it flowed out to other places. i would say that the super pacs have finally equal liesed on our side what the unions have been doing the last two decades hypothe bounce of the shouse our pop i can. here is the make up there are 430 seats, 218 to control it 240 republicans, 190 democrats there are five vacancies. likely to vote for a democrat in theps races 47%, likely to vote for a republican 46%, it is split down the middle. so that's our topic this morning. we turn to rick in virginia.
caller: i don't understand why you guys keep saying that the med kire guarantee would go out the wind doe if people could stay in the traditional medicare program? the second something from 2003 to 2006 the republicans never had complete control because they only had an average of 52 in the senate according to composition of congress so they couldn't pass any major legislation. they did get the tax cuts through but they couldn't do comprehensive tax reform or major regulatory reform. but in 2009 for that seven month period after the franklin victory and the brown victry the democrat did have 60 seats in the senate and they didn't do anything but the medical bill. why didn't they do
comprehensive tax reform? why didn't they do the tax break for shipping jobs overseas? guest: well, first of all, i would take rishe i think the democratic majority accomplished a great deal last cycle and did more to create jobs and saved millions of jobs across the country and prevented another recession. so i would completely take issue with that. the first question remind me, i can't remember the caller's first question. host: he was talking about republicans only had 52 -- he was referring to the senate i believe. the republicans didn't have control to get things done guest: here is what i can say. if you look at what happened in the cycle there was a mandate from the american people to create jobs. and the tea party republican
congress came in and all they did was protect tax breaks for mill nares and subsidies for oil companies. there were negotiations and eric walked out of them -- guest: every report has focused on the fact president obama walked out on those negotiations. you can talk about a lot of things but when you look at third party reporters the fact is obama walked out of those negotiations. we look forward to having those negotiations again and only a democrat could believe we have success on the job market. we've had over 7 and a half unemployment for over four years. there is nothing successful about that. guest: the record i would reference is he was walking out. wurp brought to the brink of
our credit disaster when the republicans refused to do anything to raise the debt limit and move on to have serious negotiations. so the partisan lock hold that is happening in washington is fuel led by the tea party republicans in congress and the tea party waives that is brought in, it is rolling back. and that is what is going to happen in this election. it is the tea party members doing more yelling on tv. those are caller: i'm calling from the great state of minnesota. our state is a very diverse state. i meant independence and our state consists of latinos, native, my mom, myself, we are
african-american. we unloaded -- we have noticed certain lines that have been drawn. i mean this with the utmost respect to both parties, certain people campaign in certain communities. for 100 going to be percent sign of americans, shouldn't certain candidates go to all -- for 100% of have -- one under% of americans. some people take for granted that because myself and my wife are african-american, we're going to vote for barack obama. i would like to hear the other side of the argument in my community. some of the members of my community, we rarely see elected officials or people running for office. >> he is exactly right. we need to be campaigning across
the country and i think republican candidates are doing that across the country. we feel very good about where our targeted feet are. there is no doubt the republican party in 2006 and 2008 shrank back to a smaller version of itself. but we showed we could win seats across the country from the northeast to the midwest. for the first time, we will have competitive seats in california. california has 10 competitive seat. we think it is a great opportunity for america. host: let's go back to the bus at the site of the presidential debate tonight. >guest: does either party have
plans to rehabilitate veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress? >> in the last congress, the democrats passed the new gi bill which was the largest new assistance to veterans coming home since the july bill in the second world war. our party has a good track record on this issue. what we have seen in the most recent congress is republicans voting against insuring troops receive their pay in the event of a shutdown. i think the record there is a pretty clear and speaks for itself. >> it does speak for itself. it is a weak partisan hit. we need more jobs, especially for troops returning home and we need to get our economy moving again.
we are focused on making sure we're not taxing job creators, that we are reducing government spending that is hampering job growth, and jobs, jobs, jobs with the speaker have said from the beginning. we're very focused on creating jobs and creating a better economy. host: from our tour page, baby blue eyes says democrats may never control congress again. guest: i think history speaks for itself. the pendulum is always swinging both ways. we feel very confident about our prospects. we're going to pick up a lot of seat and the majority is definitely in striking distance. caller: bill clinton sent all of
our jobs overseas with nafta and fair trade and obama and hillary is talking about bringing them back and i want to know why republicans are all over that. >> i think republicans are focused on over taxation and over regulation are forcing jobs overseas. we need to take the boot off the throat of small-business men and women. when you have an $800 billion stimulus, which is actually a trillion dollars, when you vote for that in white and, that creates a problem for the entire country because you -- right now, we have a government and president obama is in power and we are focused on the government jobs rather than private sector jobs. need to get back focused on private sector job growth and i
think the republicans have a plan for that. host: let's go back to the campaign 2012 bus. guest: how do each campaigns target different focus groups and is there a difference in the way the campaign's target their respective focus groups? >> i think political campaigning has improved a lot over the years in talking to the voters. i think both of us do a pretty good job of it. republicans tend not to brag as much about it. i think i have seen several stories on obama's get out the vote. we tend to brag about it only after we succeed. >> i agree in as much as we both do a tremendous amount of research. we're both using the same best practices. we would both believe we have a
superior ground game and targeting and research operation and we will see on election day. >> a much money and resources does it take to get a good ground game? >> there are two sets of states in this election -- there's the presidential state, the republicans refer to them as orphan states, california and new york -- president obama -- >> are you talking about battleground states? >> correct. president obama's has a tremendous turnout and we're working in california, new york and other states. guys having the same challenge, it takes tremendous resources in the state where presidential campaigns do not have an operation. guest: the ground game is not
just an investment in money, it's an investment in time. i started creating these kinds of games -- mostly in california, california is a place neither party committee has targeted in the last two decades. because of the redistricting there, it has created sometimes completely new seats. i don't think there is a government with 50% of its old seats. is a unique opportunity. >> the top race for each of you in california? guest: i am shocked by the democrats are letting us beat jerry attorney with a light -- like a pinata. we have a great chance -- he is running a fantastic campaign.
>> jerry mcinerney is definitely coming back from -- coming back for congress. turning a terrific campaign as he always has. rick is a wonderful guy but a 25-year-old law student who hasn't had a real job in his life. that's not just me, that's the news reports there that have validated that. he's fortunate to have grown up in a very wealthy family that is politically correct -- politically connected, but that is a democratic district. one of the key races for us is tony strickland, a tea party republican, recent endorsements in the recent papers, he is right in line with grover norquist and americans for tax reform. this is a real litmus test of the right wing republican agenda whose standing -- facing someone who will set up for a
woman's right to choose. it is a marquee race. >> a democratic caller. caller: i usually watch c-span quite a bit every time you have different speakers on and i appreciate your program because it gives a personal of insight to what is going on in the government world. what i would like to know is that to talkers who are on today, when i first started watching, i didn't start at the beginning, when i did, it seemed they were working together on the same things. friendly. then as the conversation gets on, the republican guy seems to be more defensive and aggressive. what i would like to know is if you guys and the senators in the house can work together as one group for the world, for the people, who they are elected for, why can't they keep that in their mind at work for the best
welfare of everybody. >> bipartisanship. think either robbie or i were going to be captain of the bipartisan brigade. it's up to the policymakers on the hill to be putting that together. i believe we have had a lot of bipartisan bills coming out of this republican congress. most of the job bills we have sent have bipartisan votes to them. bipartisanship does work in the house. most of the bills that have been passed in a bipartisan manner, unlike obamacare, which was shoved through without any republican votes. we have had a very open process in the house and the speaker has demanded it of the house. we have had more amendments to build, more open rules than the democratic congress. we feel good about our bipartisan record, but robbie
and i are focused on winning elections right now. >> with a back aboard the campaign 2012 bus. -- let's go back aboard the campaign 22 of us. can you hear us? go ahead. >> my question is we had david brooks on the campus last week to give our distinguished press lecture. he discussed how he sees mitt romney as an unusually guarded figure for politics. i was wondering how the gentleman thinks that means he will fare during the election upcoming. >> talking about david brooks at the college campus. >> david has a lot of a problem with our nominee. he would have a different perspective after the last debate and we will see eight different -- we will see a very open mitt romney when we get to the town hall setting of the debate. i always find it funny how we get more focused on whether
they -- rather than focusing on the issues, it's something i wish that media would focus on. the media is only focused on polling rather than issues. if we want to talk about having an open set of ideas, both parties would like to stop focusing on a horse race and focusing on exactly what's happening on a day-to-day basis than the idea is being proposed. >> are you looking at these key races, tracking polls every day? guest: we get a lot of polling information and it is a very early. the election is almost here but house races really develop a lot later. i think one of the big problems house republicans are having particularly in western pennsylvania and southeast ohio is mitt romney and particularly
in new york, illinois and california where romney is going to lose by tremendous margin. he's really become a drag on the ticket. voters do not like he is and how sorcerer. his companies made a millions buying companies stripping them apart and throwing people off work and moving jobs overseas. he wants more tax breaks for millionaires like himself. this has become a major liability for candidates running in this area that suffers from the policies that encourage outsourcing like tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. the other problem for mitt romney is we were mentioning about his personality, we don't ever know where he is on anything. he supported a tax plan for five trillion dollars in tax cuts and that in the debate it has disappeared and says he's never heard for tax breaks for companies that shift jobs overseas when he has benefited from them. the big problem for voters right now is the fact they see they
don't like but they also don't ever know where he is because he keeps changing all the time. >> that needed another student here. guest: the p research center said there are 70% began voters less interested in this campaign. why do voters feel so disconnected from the candidates? what were your -- what will your party is due to engage the voters? >> i would encourage all young voters to start reading the front page and get involved in part -- get involved in politics. i'll feel like it's the party's fault that young people are not engaged. there are millions of dollars being spent on advertising in the ground campaign. sometimes the american public needs to be focused on the campaign that what is at stake. i think both parties to a very good job of trying to reach out to all voters. going backed to the consistent
diatribe on the other side, the fact is if shipping jobs overseas, if there is a tax loophole, they had two years to fix it and i never did it because they couldn't find it. we know what the problem is, we have over regulation of companies sitting here and in the united states that we have over taxation of the companies sitting here in the united states and that is the reason why jobs are being shipped overseas, that we have too much of a regulatory burden. guest: on the topic of young people, i think there could be more at stake for an people in this election. it's really important young people getting gauge and vote. from my perspective, what is at stake is a lot of the tea party members elected last cycle, they want to end of the department of education, students loans -- there are key resources out
there that young people need to get through college, get a good degree, and get a job. i think we would agree -- we would agree that people need to be engaged in this race. they need to vote for house democrats because we're going to insure folks can get a college education and find a job. host: let me get another young boys in here. only have them for a little while longer. guest: recently in my philosophy course, we have been talking about the ethics of political representation. there has been longstanding debate over whether representatives should act directly in line with their constituents' desires or make experienced decisions by what they think is in their constituents best interest. which approach to each of you believe will be most active in facilitating problem solving in
washington? >> i think that's another reason why robbie and i are interested in the house. it's one of the few political institutions in which you have two titles -- a representative fixing the pot holes back home, making sure social security checks are happening and on the national side -- everything will congress has to have a balance between his two. that the like every other political persuasion. the senators are very much focused on the states and when you look at state senators and representatives, they're focused on the representative side. every member of congress has to have that balance as they're going through it. the thing i want to focus on is the obama freshman that voted for him for years ago are now seniors and they are looking out at have their jobs. i that is the key change for young voters right now, they
were sold a bag of goods, they thought they were voting for hope and change and i have nothing. they're living in their parent'' basement and that's not a good place for them to be and i think one of the reasons we have seen young people either disillusioned of this cycle or at least looking at the republican party for some answers. host: let's go to massachusetts next and a democratic caller. caller: i listen to c-span all the time and recommend it highly to everyone i know. in listening to the reports and pundits talk to people all over the country regarding the upcoming presidential race, a lot of folks will say we want to try romney because we hear he was such a great governor. as someone who is governed by mayor romney in massachusetts, i want to say he was not a good governor. he cut a lot of jobs, he did not raise taxes, but he raised
every feet sky-high to the point that average guy could not take this child fishing because the fishing fees went up so high. i then that is a disservice to people who believe they're voting for somebody they think is one thing but is something else. >> mitt romney has been successful in everything he has that i think that the key difference in this presidential race. we have a person successful at taking companies from bankruptcy to profitability. when you look at staples and other key brands across the country, he helped build those brands. this is a president that understands how to create jobs verses what is essentially a university professor or unity -- a community organizer has never done anything to create jobs. the best thing obama has been able to do is figure out where his next job is going to be and we look forward to allowing him to figure that out.
host: joshua and in colorado springs. a republican. caller: this is for both gentlemen on the program. following up on veterans and suicide, i want to ask the question up on how both parties are going to specifically address the issue, not talking. about jobs and the g.i. bill. i want to know how both parties are going to address funding and how they're going to look at programs to help veterans. >> it is a good question. we're not policy experts, so it's hard to get into too many specifics. the gi bill passed in the last congress by the democratic majority was the biggest ever since the second world war and injured troops coming home could get the education and health care, including mental health care they need and absolutely deserve when they come back. this is an issue we agree on.
the mechanics, and how it is set up, we disagree on but i can't get into policy specifics because i'm not an expert, but i can address the record. >> with the to and independent in ohio. caller: this is for both gentlemen on the panel. as an american, why do we want a modern day gordon gecko as president? i'm talking about mitt romney. i will take my answer of the year. >> i think we want someone who can create jobs and not someone who's going to take -- make bets on failed solar companies. we want someone who is going to create jobs and i think mitt romney has shown he has the ability to create jobs. many of their retailers you currently buy, whether it is a staple for other companies, he created. i think he has a record of
creating jobs and a record of reviving institutions that were failing such as the salt lake city olympics. we have a great opportunity here and we need to create jobs to grow this economy. >> the only thing i would take issue with is that he says obama has not been successful. what earl -- what is success? is it making a lot of money or is it helping out this country? the problem with that romney's record as he has gone in, taken over companies, laid-off workers, increased his bottom line, but hurt the communities he is in. this is the choice of voters have in the house races. are going to send people to congress and will help these big corporations improve their bottom line and give tax breaks to millionaires or are we going to focus on the middle class? that is success in the mind of the democrats running for the house. >> $800 billion of stimulus
failed pre all you have to look at is solyndra. he wanted to invest taxpayer money into a company that failed. they may have had great bathrooms and a fantastic headquarters, but they did not create any jobs. i would put my interests with their romney because he has a history of creating strong job growth both in massachusetts, helping out the olympics, and in the private sector creating many companies across the country that have created jobs. >> next caller, a democrat. caller: i have a question for mr. harrison. he said the congress the first two years of obama didn't do anything. they pass the health care bill, they stop the economy from going
down and also we all came in in 2010, that is when the trouble started. if you look at jobs, in the medical field, the jobs are picking up like mad in the medical field. are a whole lot of jobs in the medical field. you are saying there are going to be a bunch of jobs being lost but right now, this economy, every person i ask is in the medical field. how many people want to get a salary from staples quest mark if you work at staples, you are an associate. why do every republican vote no? do you all have individual thoughts and the day for yourself? >> i feel good about where the success of the house republican congress has been. the hard part is a lot of good
bills have gone to die in the senate. i will focus on the fact that harry reid has not passed a budget for three years. i feel good about what we have done to limit government spending so we can start reducing this $17 trillion in debt. host: to louisiana, the republican line. caller: i'm really getting tired of the democrats been. the military vote, there is so much going on and the people that defend this country overseas are not going to be allowed to vote because they're sending out the ballot too late or printing return date that the wrong time and most of the people come most of the
information i have been able to gather is that a lot of these are coming from a democratic controlled areas and that want to know why the democrats don't want the military people voting? what thedon't know specifics of your talking about. congress did pass a new law that mandates ballots go out earlier for military votes. there are laws in place that insurer the military votes are counted on. i think this is one place guy and i would agree on and i have confidence they will be counted. host: an independent count -- in the. caller from stanford, connecticut. caller: i want to talk about the recovery and whoever gets elected is going to have to start the recovery getting better. everybody agrees there is a recovery going on, but it is not going good enough. but we are recovering. when we recovering from? it seems like we are recovering
from the republicans taking over and then not doing anything are just getting in the way of everything. i think if we reelect more republicans, it will be a relapse and we will be right back in the same old boat. they run around like crazy drunken students, all of these republicans. >> i want to give you a chance to respond to that. guest: we definitely need to create jobs and grow the economy. the fact is the president has failed at that and there's a reason they put republicans in the house. what we have been able to do is stem the profligate spending that has been happening under the democrats and we started that, reducing the spending. we have 30 jobs bills sitting in the senate. we would love to pass them and come back tomorrow and pass them. but we have had no movement
from the senate. they have not passed a budget in three years. guest: if i may take issue with one thing. when president issue -- when president clinton left office, there is a surplus. george bush came into office and created to brand new tax cuts and pay for, is by china, two wars on nation's credit card and that is what created this fiscal mess and start of the jobs going away. when president obama took office, we are hemorrhaging jobs and in deep debt. this that it was created by the republicans and the idea that they say here is this mess we created and you didn't clean it up fast enough, it is just not accurate. if we want to rein in spending, if you want to balance the budget, we do follow the policies president obama is proposing, which is to bring us back to the clinton era tax policies that we can balance the
budget again. guest: it is amazing how much the democrats want about how much -- president bush had to deal with september 11 that we act like that didn't happen. he dealt with september 11. he never lied about it. he stood there and fix the problem and yes, we had to deal with the economy. in 2007, when the highest amount of government revenue in the history of the united states, and that was underneath the bush tax cuts. you can grow the economy without increasing taxes and we have shown have the ability to do that. host: i have two more students at want to get in on the campaign 2012 bus. guest: what is your opinion on the recent citizens united decision and how will that impact future elections? guest: the supreme court believes we have the freedom of speech. is this something republicans
said when democrats forced through the idea of campaign finance reform. we believe the party committees should be able to take more money from individuals and disclose it. like that to happen. citizens united allows other entities out there to do that. it essentially allows the other entities to do with the unions have been doing for the last two decades. we would love to work with the democrat on reinforcing the ability of both political parties to be able to take in some and fully disclosed. i will say that the dcc and and are seral living and high as disclosures. there is not a company in america have to disclose how much they take in every mind that now much we spend. we are highly regulated. we want to be regulated allow money to flow back into the party's because that's a better way for the american people to be -- american government to be held the title.
guest: citizens united was a disaster for the middle class. freedom of speech is at the core of what this country is about. corporations are not people. mitt romney and i see this differently. what you have under citizens united is a system which a health insurance company or credit card company can decide they want legislation to reflect their point of view and they don't want consumers to have the choices they need and they can go in and buy seats in congress and in ensure the people who share their extreme ideologies are elected. that is not good for america, that is not good for the middle- class. i agree that we need to change the way the money is working and politics. we need to take it out and we need to have disclosure. we don't know where this money is coming from. these folks can pop in and spend a bunch of money and it just hurts that middle-class. host: 1 last student for both of
you. this is the last student at center college. guest: the morning. what do you think our role as the millennial generation has played in the province of social issues in this campaign? guest: i think an important difference between the parties this cycle, nissan said the two conventions, democrats supported ending don't ask, don't tell, we support a woman's right to choose and what women do have access to contraception. these are basic rights that make sense to us and i think the republicans are stuck in the dark ages. they don't think gays and lesbians should have the right to serve in the military, want to restrict women's health care choices and a woman's right to choose. i think the millennial generation will play an enormous role in this generation in terms of siding with a party that i would argue is up to speed with the times in terms of social
issues your mentioning. >> there was no doubt there was a different convention you have focused on social issues rather than jobs and the economy because you know you are failing on jobs and the economy. obama and the democrats would like to talk about anything other than obama's record of failure. there is a reason nancy pelosi and her crew were knocked out two years ago and it's because they were pushing things not focused on jobs and the economy. they were too focused on passing a obamacare which 75% of small business and say will limit job growth. we are very clear on it to things we need to do when we get back -- we've got to repeal obamacare which will allow the opportunity for job growth and start reducing the regulation and taxation that tendering it. host: we have about 30 minutes left with our guests here, but i want to thank our students for participating in today's
program. i also want to think laura pritchard for preparing the students and time warner cable for sponsoring today's best visit. very good from the students, we appreciate that. thank you for taking their questions. i want to continue with our viewer phone calls for the next 30 minutes as we focus on the balance of the house and what is at stake in these races. john has been waiting patiently in illinois, a democratic caller. democrat and i have been for over 40 years. the thing about the democratic party is you have liberal democrats, social democrats, the of corporate democrats. listen to die speaks over there, he mentioned the fact that not one republican in congress voted for the affordable care act or stimulus. my question as it doesn't that say something about the republican party, suggest something very dark? more like a cult rather than a
political party. as my question. thank you very much. >> it is it good to know we have some good partisan democrats calling in today. when you look at the stimulus and obamacare, we tried to put in a mammoth. the democrats would not allow them to the floor. this is the imperial culture nancy pelosi had in place where if you were eight republican, you did not have a chance to speak. speaker boehner has allowed more amendments on the floor, twice as much as the democrats before them. we still believe in the ability to pass bipartisan bills. that's why we have 30 jobs bills, bipartisan jobs bills sitting in the senate bill would like to get past. >> the one thing i would say to that is the extreme fringe of the republican party demanded the republicans hold a hearing on how to ban women from having access to contraception, extreme social issue having nothing to do with jobs and they did not
allow a single woman to speak at the hearing. when one woman did come to speak, she was shut out. any notions about the democrats being imperial and in control pales in comparison to what the republicans have done and their records on that. host: let's turn to some specific house races and what they mean. the texas 23rd race. this is a piece written in san francisco about the texas 23rd race. guest: this is an exemplary race. you have somebody who's out of line with this district -- he
opposes the dream act in a district that is 60% hispanic. he has been dogged by his vote to end medicare as we know it and drive seniors' health care cost up. he's a millionaire who has voted to create new tax breaks for himself but voted against the middle class. these are the issues you see them going back and forth and it's a very clear choice for voters in this district. guest: our candidate is a true testament to the american dream. you insult him by calling him a millionaire, but he is a self- made man. it is amazing democrat only what you if you haven't had success, but once you have success, we're going to denigrate your success and bring you down. this is one of the problems with the democratic problem -- democratic party, they are always after the job creator. he's going at it to win this race because he is going against
someone who wants to cut gas jobs. texas is growing fine, thank you because we are creating jobs in texas. we have the ability to take off the regulation and create will and gas jobs that are needed in the state of texas. host: pennsylvania's 12th district. after redistricting, this district favored john mccain by 54% to 45%. how are you defending? >> mark chris has done a terrific job establishing a record. he's a moderate democrat, a pro- jobs democrat, pro-labor democrats. this is a union-heavy area that has really suffered from outsourcing and the policies of outsourcing. mitt romney is a huge liability for the republican has offered
nothing but more tax breaks for the wealthy and is siding with the republicans on the medicare policy that will end medicare as we know it. he is out of step with this district. yes, john mccain 1 here, but mark has won here twice, he won a special election, he's a good fit and he will win again. >> i find that state and hilarious. please encourage barack obama to come to this district because he is going to lose this district by six points. we have someone running a great race and there's no doubt markets a talented campaigner. he's very good at saying one thing in the district and voting a different way in washington. when you look at the fact he has said he is for creating jobs but he has an anti-jobs record, we have a great opportunity in this race and we would advise barack obama to come to this district.
we would love to have him there. >> let's go back to phone calls. a republican from arlington, virginia. caller: this conversation has covered a lot of ground and has been stellar. if i could take a moment now -- lots of debunking to do here, so i will take a couple real quick. on the notion of bipartisanship, which is something we all desire, that is an impossibility with the democratic party of our day, of our time, of our era. look at obama, pelosi, read -- as has been pointed out here, harry reid blocks everything. you cannot pass anything through the u.s. senate. how you get bipartisanship if the senate majority leader does allow anything to pass through the senate? this president had his white house chief of staff running around at the congressional locker rooms poking congressman
in the chest as they're coming out of the shower demanding a better vote for obamacare. it has been very aggressive, it has been chicago style politics. you're not going to get bipartisanship and i'll give you another quick example. as the government romney had a lot of vetoes. most of them were overridden. guest: i obviously disagree with what the caller said. the republicans have passed a budget that and medicare as we know it, forces seniors into private health insurance companies that will cost them $6,000 more a year, provides tax cuts for millionaires, increases the tax cuts for millionaires by increasing deductions. it was a totally unreasonable budget and voting for a deficit. it was not reasonable to star with that you cannot pass an extreme tea party budget and put
the senate and president and say pass this budget. it is unreasonable. there was a process in place and president obama came to the table and eric cantor walks away. it is not their way or the highway. there has to be some compromise. the tea party swept then, voters are having buyer's remorse, this is not the job-creating new era in washington, it's just more rhetoric and special interests. what we will see in this cycle is the tea party wave will roll back and we will bring in some real problem solvers. host: i was's fourth district -- steve king lost in richer -- redistricting some of the basie had in the past. democrats would love to pick up this see. guest: i'm sure they would love to pick up this seat, but they have thrown in the towel. the democrats have given up on
the sea. i'm glad they wasted money on the seat. steve king is going to win overwhelmingly. we feel pretty good about that. but focus on the fact that barack obama's budget was put in the house and senate and got revoked. that a stellar argument that we're going to talk about barack obama's budget because he's gotten zero votes in house and senate. when you are negotiating, it's hard to negotiate with yourself. the democrats of never figured out a way to get their coalition around one thing, especially in the house. we look forward to negotiating with them and increasing job growth. host: have democrats given up? guest: that is completely untrue. we've invested a lot of money in this district. the real story here is this race is in play at all and the first place. the reason it is employees because before there was a tea
party, steve king was the tea party. he was the original tea party. this race should not be in play. this is a longtime incumbent and has been in a long time. it should have never come into play. he was checked out of the district and cared more about hanging out with michele bachmann. last time i checked, there is no border there. this race is in play and we are all in. guest: they're all in without any money. steve king is going to win overwhelmingly. the only reason why the democrats spend money here is because it's a democrat that the city. we really appreciate them wasting the money they could have spent helping out one of their incumbents they're not supporting right now. these are the choices the other side has to make.
going off on fantasyland is not a great opportunity. host: an independent caller from pennsylvania. caller: i think both parties are on a totally by the israeli lobby, including billionaires' who bought the democratic party about 10 years ago. host: what evidence do you have of that? caller: the way they vote. two years ago, when netanyahu addressed both houses of congress in a joint session, he got 29 standing ovations. they worship him because -- host: to either one of you want to take that one? guest: the republican party
believes israel is our ally. >> same on the democratic side. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is for the republican sitting there but nothing getting through the senate. host: guy harrison is his name. caller: do you know how many filibusters there have been since obama has been president? 278, more than the last four presidents have to put up with. cloture votes, you cannot pass any thing when you have somebody who wants to make you a one-term president. guest: the fact is, if you passed a budget, you would be able to get things through with 51 votes. that is the problem, they don't want to pass a budget, so they get into cloture. there was a time when barack obama had the house, the senate and himself, one-party rule.
if they wanted to get things done, trying to figure out the mythical tax for shipping jobs overseas, they should have that than. but the fact is they did not pass a budget that when they had complete control and they are not passing one now. guest: to the caller's point -- the republicans had a meeting after the present -- after president obama's inauguration and this has been documented, they made it clear decision to block anything he tried to do at any cost. that has been evidenced by their entire voting record, voting no down the line and the reason a budget can i get past because house republicans will not pass a reasonable budget. they pass a budget that panders to special interests and and adam -- and the medicare as we know it. is not acceptable, it's not what the voters want and that's why we need to kick the tea party out of congress a week to get a reasonable budget passed.
going tom glad we're conspiracy theories and secret meetings. if they can't even get the budget of committee process, we can have every excuse in the book. the democrats have taken him up on his offer. all we hear is excuses. why don't we pass the budget? host: let's go to michael in tallahassee, florida. caller: i have a question about the plan format romney to increase employment. does he believe the fact that a rich man will be able to create 12 million jobs in four years with the idea of reducing taxes possible? guest: the key point is to focus on tax reform. our tax system is too burdensome and frankly allows it
to many loopholes at the upper income levels. that is why we're focused on reducing those with polls, reducing taxes across the board, including the corporate tax. we have the highest corporate tax in the world and it's one of the reasons jobs are going overseas. we have taxed and regulated american jobs out of business. we don't want american jobs to just compete, we want them to dominate. we want to dominate the world market and we think the ability to do that is reducing taxing and regulation. host: i want to get a republican phone call from houston, texas. caller: i am a tea party year, and i am tired of hearing them bad mouth the tea party as some sort of conspiracy. let me explain to you, we started the tea party because we're sick and tired of what is going on in washington by both
the democrats and the standard republicans. we were tired of it. i hate to tell you, but democrats do nothing but why, which is why they're blaming mitt romney for lying. don't call the kettle black when you are black and i listen to c- span, i listened to the hearings and i can't tell you how stupid the democrats sound. by the way, social security, give me back my money. i could have invested it better than the government did. i don't need your medicare. i'm not going to say anything more than that because i have a lot of knowledge about wall street. you are lying. unless you are a cpa, you don't understand what mitt romney is saying. guest: thank you. i think there are a lot of well- meaning people who believed in the two -- who believe in the
tea party because they were frustrating -- frustrated with the culture of washington. i think they are experiencing by part -- i think they are experiencing buyer's remorse. they joined the bipartisan -- they spent more time on cable tv than they did getting anything done and you bring up the subject of social security and medicare. the problem with what republicans want to do is they want to create more tax breaks for the wealthy and that they are going to take away your medicare, but they're not going to give them money back, they're going to give it to more tax breaks. that is why they're having to end medicare as they but otherwise they cannot afford these giant tax breaks they want. i hear your frustration. a lot of voters have it, but the tea party has not proved to be the solution. host: i want to give a good idea of what you are focused on. new york 19, more than half the district's voters are new to
him. are you concerned about this race? guest: he is an american bleeder, an american hero and has a great persona across the district as a very good, and dependent voting record he has had all the way through congress. he also understands the only party that has cut medicare is the democrats. democrats cut medicare by $800 million to fund obamacare. if you want to talk about -- i notice we have not talked about obamacare a lot on the democratic side because they want it to be their stellar achievement but they don't talk about it because it stifling job growth and hurting seniors and putting 15 unelected bureaucrats between you and your doctor. i think we have a great chance with chris gibson and i feel confident in that victory. it's nice to see the dccc
spending money in new york. he had to take his money from florida and illinois and pennsylvania for his other failed races to bring it back to the york and see if he could hold off and help himself in late new york. guest: i will talk about new york 19, but let me address medicare. guy made the assertion that there were cuts to medicare. the adjustments he wore as talking about, what the democrats did in the president's health care bill was take hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies going to private insurance companies and that everyone agreed were a waste and cut those because they were a wasteful subsidy to private insurance companies. it was such a good idea that paul brian included these same cuts in his budget. term, itll clinton's takes a lot of brass for the republicans to accuse democrats
of something they voted for themselves. it is particularly ironic in new york's 19th, where chris gibson is taking something he himself did and attacking him for it. every independent source has said there was no cut to benefits. that's a lie republicans are spreading. on new york 19, chris gibson had a strong standing and strong lead in this district. he was in the mid-50s and that a good place to be. this is a tie now. it's a tight because of medicare and it's that high because of mitt romney and paul ryan. -- it is a high because of medicare and it is a tight because of their romney and paul ryan. >> we would love to have obama come up to that district. guest: i would love to have mitt romney get to that district. guest: i don't think either one of them will go to this
district. chris gibson has a good chance and a good independent record. guest: he voted with the tea party. caller: i'm serious that the mad hatter's and the tea party are holding our government hostage. we have shovel-ready infrastructure jobs that are ready to go what we need that money to create good career ladder jobs. the tea party does not -- does not believe in government anyway. they should not be running for elected office. to c $20 million account of money to flip state elections, i don't know if it's in iowa or ohio, this is incredible. they are only allow $100,000 for a campaign in england. host: what about the money? >> we're talking about a shovel ready jobs? are these the same struggle ready jobs obama said he could
not find after spending $800 billion on stimulus? more government spending is not the answer. need to create private sector growth. that's the reason why we have the ability to have chris gibson the elected in new york. caller: i want to say you look stunning to do. mr. harrison, can you explain to the people how much time and effort it would take to repeal obamacare? i'm hanging up. guest: it would be a vote that would be passed in the house and if it ever got up on the senate floor, we would be able to repeal it. the fact is, it is universal now that obamacare is not needed or wanted. the president was focused on
cost and access when he should have been focused on cost. health care has risen after obamacare. seniors are getting cut. i know they hate to hear this but there was $800 billion cut out of medicare. very focused on the fact that everyone saying no one like that insurance product, just talk to the seniors on medicare advantage. they like the additional choices and what they want to do is put in a government-run system that does not allow them the choice. we want more choice in medicare. as paul bryant says, we want millions of seniors to be making -- as paul ryan says, oil of millions of us seniors to be making decisions. host: i have a tweed here -- what liberals call austerity is living within your budget. liberals are not physically
responsive -- not fiscally responsible. guest: we should go back to the facts. when bill clinton was president, we had a surplus and the borrowing had stopped. president bush comes into office, to enormous tax breaks -- >> september 11. >> i don't know how that figures into the budget. that is what created the economic crisis. if you want to look back at the last few decades, look at the president to read in spending. was bill clinton, that's the kind of leadership we are looking for. i just want to say the problem here is the tea party promised a lot and delivered nothing. they voted to repeal obamacare dozens of time. the vote has been taken and it has happened. people don't want insurance companies to be able to throw them off because they have a pre-exis c